Greene PC Denies Proffer Amendment

By. Brent Wilson, Field Officer

Back in 2008, Kinvara Properties, LLC received approval of their Greene County rezoning on the west side of US29 near its intersection with Cedar Grove Road (Route 607).  As a part of the rezoning, a series of voluntary proffers were offered by the developer and accepted by Greene County.   On Wednesday, May 15^th Kinerva returned to the Greene County Planning Commission  to request to amendment of the proffers including interconnectivity and removal of the cash proffers 

Attorney Butch Davies spoke on behalf of the request and indicated that Kinvara has a party, Jeana Server, interested in purchasing the property if it included passage from Deer Lake Estates to the Food Lion shopping center and the elimination of cash proffers. Mr. Davies indicated that the buyer would not make the purchase without these conditions.

After hearing from the applicant, the commission opened the public hearing. Chad Womack, a resident in Deer Lake Estates, stated that the residents did not want connectivity to the Food Lion shopping center. Ed Mahoney echoed Mr. Womack’s concern and suggested that a traffic light be installed on Route 29 at the Deer Lake entrance.

Jenna Server, the prospective buyer, said that the $9,000 cash proffer  that was a part of the 2008 rezoning, was not economically feasible given the market study she recently had performed.

Matt Straus, a resident of the Willow Creek subdivision, urged the Planning Commission not to bail out the developer by waiving the cash proffer at the expense of having the residents in Greene County bear this cost. Brian Higgins from the Piedmont Environmental Council asked that the Planning Commission not start a trend of waiving cash proffers. One speaker did speak in favor of the amendment stating it would be good for business in a down economy.

The final speaker was Carl Schmitt, former Greene County supervisor, who helped develop the Cash Proffer policy. He asked the commission not to allow the amendment and to keep the Cash Proffer policy in effect.

The Planning Commission then closed the public hearing and opened their discussion of the request. Vice Chairman Jay Willer indicated he had some concerns about the proffer policy itself, but as for this specific request, he felt there should not be a modification to the proffer policy. Chairman Anthony Herring Joel Snow stated that while he is a businessman and had sympathy with the request he did not support waiving the Cash Proffer. The remaining three commissioners were all in agreement and the vote was unanimous 5 – 0 to deny the rezoning application.

Earlier this Spring, the Free Enterprise Forum issued a white paper ‘Contradictory Consequences‘ regarding the impacts of cash proffers on development projects. While we do not take a position on any project, the Free Enterprise Forum believes the testimony supports that cash proffers are one (not the only) factor in the market viability of this specific project.

________________________________

Brent Wilson is the Greene County Field Officer for the Free Enterprise Forum a privately funded public policy organization.

The Free Enterprise Forum Field Officer program is funded by a generous grant from the Charlottesville Area Association of REALTORS® (CAAR) and by readers like you.  To support this important work please donate online at www.freeenterpriseforum.org

Albemarle’s Development Double Standard Allows The Library To Cross The Road

By. Neil Williamson, President

On Wednesday (5/1) the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors have an $11.8 Million dollar consent agenda item regarding the relocation of Northside library from its current rental space in the Albemarle Square Shopping Center to a location just west of the intersection of Rio Road and US 29.

The Free Enterprise Forum is concerned a double standard may be in play as this is a “public” project as opposed to a private development. As private development interests are regularly told that the financial demands of regulatory approvals are not the concern of the County. 

In the past, Albemarle has taken such opportunities to showcase how well their projects embrace the goals of the comprehensive plan and build to the highest criteria.  In this case, we believe the county has identified a parcel and is trying to put a square peg in a round hole.

Would a private development get the same free pass?

Currently the Northside Library is in a retail center with significant parking as well as other community facilities within reasonable walking distances such as a bakery, a number of restaurants, a movie theater, a private health club, as well as a new grocery store.

It is important to the discussion that the County is in a lease agreement in this space and that agreement is up for renewal/renegotiation in 2014.

The new site is located on the south side of Rio Road West, just west of the intersection with US29.  The staff proposal is to reuse the existing structure to house both the Northside Library (30,000 sq. ft.)as well as long term County warehouse and storage space (20,000+ sq. ft.).

The site is bounded by commercial land on all sides and is zoned for HC Highway commercial. 

The headquarters for the Daily Progress is located immediately to west on Rio Road.

Interestingly, this same parcel (in combination with the adjacent parcel) was under consideration for a Homewood Suites hotel location in January of last year. 

That project went to Albemarle’s Architectural Review Board (ARB) on January 4th.  At some point after the ARB issued their initial 15 demands (including the need for 3D Modeling) for future submittals, the investors in the hotel project chose to move the project into the more business friendly City of Charlottesville (read the January 3, 2012 ARB minutes here).

While we are not suggesting the ARB review was the exclusive cause of the hotel project relocation, it certainly was one of the contributing factors.  So now, as the private development (tax generating) option has been eliminated we are looking at a public use on the parcel.

Seeing this item on the Board of Supervisors consent agenda leads us to believe last Tuesday’s discussion at the Albemarle County Planning Commission may be the only public discussion regarding this project. 

Staff met with the Board of Supervisors in closed session early this year to initiate this discussion and to place contractual “holds” on the land to allow for due diligence.  Staff has projected the upfit of the property to be in the $8 million dollar range (~$166 per sq. ft.) as compared with $250 a square foot for new construction.

The staff conveniently found the project to be generally consistent with the demands of the facilities and would be a positive redevelopment of this parcel.  Unlike a private development, the focus of the Planning Commission discussion was not as directed “whether the general location, character and extent of the proposed facility are in substantial accord with the adopted Comprehensive Plan” but instead focused on the economics of this infrastructure addition.

The Neighborhood Model portion of the Comprehensive Plan places significant importance to interconnectivity of roadways, pedestrian orientation, relegated parking and multi model access.  

Section 5.9.15 of the proposed Comprehensive Plan includes:

Strategy 2a: All government facilities in the Development Areas should conform to the principles of the Neighborhood Model.

The reality is the West Rio site is not well placed to become a neighborhood center, it is not located near significant residential activity and  the existing bike lanes end at Berkmar.  While the location is “not completely devoid of residences,” according to County staff the density of this residential is low, and access from those homes to the site is challenged.

Commissioner Tom Loach perhaps put it most succinctly when he said “Theoretically, this is not the Neighborhood Model”.  But Loach also said, “ we can’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good”.

Commissioner Rick Randolph voiced cost effectiveness concerns saying “Focusing on the ideal should not get in the way of this moving forward”.  Commissioner Ed Smith echoed this sentiment stating “It’s not a campus atmosphere but it is the lesser of two evils”.  Commissioner “Mac” Lafferty believes this is an opportunity that will not repeat itself. 

As a part of the discussion, Commissioner Don Franco pushed County staff suggesting there might be ways to make the project more Neighborhood Model friendly and asked if the applicant (the County) was prepared to make commitments to mitigate the negative impacts of the redevelopment.  He was concerned that by approving this use, the County might end up in a “firing range” situation where as a commission they have no choice but to approve the site plan regardless of the many concerns.

Commissioner Bruce Dotson enumerated a laundry list of things he would like to see in a library site: Activity center, pedestrian friendly, open space, green space were all important items he wanted to be in the Comprehensive Plan.  How this project failed to measure up to those standards was relatively clear.

To address these concerns staff has suggested that future improvements to make the project more pedestrian and bicycle friendly could be reprogrammed from the proposed Berkmar Extension. The Free Enterprise Forum is very troubled by the suggestion of removing a transportation backbone to make a library fit on a less than ideal site.

Loach was OK with the idea that the applicant (the County) would do their best to address them.  Would a private developer get this level of trust?

In the end the unanimous Planning Commission decision supported the library use with the condition that the applicant (the county) “come as close to the Neighborhood Model as possible”  Perhaps this will be the language used in all future land use discussions – I have my doubts.

Respectfully submitted,

Neil Williamson

Neil Williamson is the President of the Free Enterprise Forum, a local government public policy organization located in Charlottesville.  www.freeenterpriseforum.org

Photo Credits: Free Enterprise Forum

Map Credit: Bing.com

Fluvanna Passes Budget and CIP

By. Bryan Rothamel

PALMYRA – The Fluvanna County Board of Supervisors passed the 2014 fiscal year budget and associated tax rates unanimously during the April 17 meeting.

The budget had minimal changes from the advertised budget. The tax rates did not change from advertised amounts, with the real property tax rate at $0.795 per $100 assessed and personal property tax at $4.15 per $100 assessed.

“I love this budget,” said Mozell Booker (Fork Union District) after the meeting. “We put in some things that we took out last year and the schools are in a better position. I loved the whole budget process, the way it was organized, the way it was presented. And we got a 5-0 on the tax rate.”

The minor changes to the budget were increased funding for the Fluvanna-Louisa Foundation and Jefferson Area Board of Aging. These two changes came from other budget lines but totaled $17,000 of changes.

Notable budget items include $13.75 million for the school district, educational supplements for deputies and structured pay increases for county employees who are currently paid less than market value.

“It was a win-win situation for everybody involved: for schools, for deputies, for staff. Those are the best sorts of budgets. I think that’s why we had such smooth sailing this time around,” said chairman Shaun Kenney (Columbia District).

The FY2014 budget is for $65,312,998. The Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), included in the total budget figure, has $3,834,662 worth of projects for FY2014.

The CIP caused more discussion than the budget. Don Weaver (Cunningham District) did not like the inclusion of a $20 million new elementary school for FY2018. The supervisors only commit to fund items in the FY14 column unless an item stretches from FY14 into following years. The other years were described as ‘hopeful’, ‘dreams’ and ‘planned for’.

Bob Ullenbruch agreed with Weaver’s dissension on the elementary school.

Weaver said he would prefer the School Board raise the issue instead of the Board of Supervisors just including an item from very basic discussions. Weaver hoped in the next nine months the School Board would have a better idea of student enrollment, projections and usage of current facilities including the pending closures of Columbia and Cunningham elementary schools.

The CIP for FY14 includes $575,000 for construction of a Zion Crossroad water and sewer system with another $3.1 million in FY15 and $975,000 in FY16. All three years are slated to be paid for by cash, with the first year coming from the Fund Balance instead of operating expenses.

Also in the plan are a groundwater study and adding a water source to the Fork Union Sanitary Department system. The plan also includes replacing an emergency services apparatus.

The CIP has $1.26 million of spending on school projects including new buses, implementation of a new financial system the county finance department uses, renovations to Carysbrook Elementary School and information technology like server virtualization and internet equipment upgrades.

The CIP was adjusted to take school flooring replacement and playground equipment upgrades out of the FY14 year. The supervisors will vote at the next meeting to pay for those items, totaling $150,000, from the FY13 budget. This will allow the school district to award a contract and begin work sooner in order to give proper time before school resumes this August.

The CIP passed 3-2 with Weaver and Ullenbruch voting against it. Weaver announced before the vote his vote against was a protest vote of the FY18 elementary school line.

The first tax bill to include the new tax rates will be due June 5. The FY14 calendar year begins July 1, 2013.

——————————————–

The Free Enterprise Forum’s coverage of Fluvanna County is provided by a grant from the Charlottesville Area Association of REALTORS® and by the support of readers like you.

Bryan Rothamel covers Fluvanna County for the Free Enterprise Forum.  He is the founder of the Fluco Blog.  Additional writings can be found at www.Flucoblog.com

Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan–Deep in the Weeds

By. Neil Williamson

An open letter to the Albemarle County Planning Commission:

April 15, 2013

Mr. Calvin Morris, Chairman, Albemarle County Planning Commission

Dear Chairman Morris and members of the Albemarle County Planning Commission,

Thank you for the extended deadline to provide written comments on the Albemarle Comprehensive Plan. Staff should be commended for marshaling this process forward and seeking to limit the size of the plan (which is still too big).

Before we get to our analysis of the plan, the Free Enterprise Forum wishes to highlight the failure of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission to meet the deadlines associated with the joint City/County/TJPDC/UVA livability plan. In concept this over 1 million dollar expenditure was to “inform the comprehensive planning in the City and County”, the money has been spent but the work is not yet complete. The plethora of meetings, public input sessions and joint Planning Commission meetings produced a number of benefits but absent the final work product the effort must be deemed a failure. While appreciative of the supplementary benefits, the Free Enterprise Forum remains concerned that this project was mismanaged by the lead agency.

We have reviewed the entire plan and our comments are organized sequentially with the plan.

Chapter 2 Growth Management Policy – page 2.2.2 the joint City Count statement “the scale and scope of the impacts of new development on this infrastructure necessitate greater financial participation by new development in addressing this need.” The statement infers that absent new development infrastructure would be adequate – which is not true. A lack of concurrency of infrastructure has been a concern of the Free Enterprise Forum for over ten years. If the answer to this concern is to make Development area projects even more expensive, this will force development into by right status , into the rural areas, or out of Albemarle County entirely.

Page 2.2.3 should recognize that the County Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) has not kept up with the community needs.

Page 2.2.4 The Free Enterprise Forum is concerned with the concept of priority areas within the development area. We recognize the limitation of public funds and the need to focus those funds. Where we are concerned is the language: “Land Use decisions should be made consistent with the priority areas established in the Development Area Master Plans. The County may decide not to approve new rezoning or special use permit outside of the designated priority areas as planned facilities are not in place to support the proposed project and the existing neighborhoods. If approved, however, as a part of the land development process, developers will need to provide more significant levels of improvement to ensure adequate infrastructure and services are available to the area.”

If, as we contend, the County has failed to properly fund and construct concurrent infrastructure, the cost to provide adequate infrastructure to both new and existing residents is now on the private land owner whose development area parcel happens not to fall in the “Priority Area”. For the same reasons as cited above this will accelerate the kind of By Right development the Comprehensive Plan indicates it wishes to avoid.

As an aside, The Free Enterprise Forum is concerned with the growing power of appointed Community Councils. We are troubled that development proposals are regularly referred to these councils for their blessing prior to going before the Planning Commission.

Chapter 3 Comprehensive Plan and Background – Page 3.2 The 1998 Sustainability Accords these items have appeared in the Comprehensive Plan since their passage. While there has been little discussion of these accords the plan states “Goals for sustainability were most recently adopted in 2007 when the Comprehensive Plan reaffirmed the accords” Has the Planning Commission, or any other body really reviewed the sustainability accords recently? They were written 15 years ago. Should we accept these accords as if they came down from the mountain on stone tablets? Or should they be examined prior to passing the comprehensive plan that would “reaffirm the Accords”

Historic Preservation Page 3.9 (joint City County goals) “To do this the City and County will: Colloborate with the University of Virginia, Ashlawn-Highland, Monticello and other community organizations on historic preservation matters.” The Free Enterprise Forum finds the failure to include property owners in the list of collaborators is an error and speaks to an institutional bias in opposition to property rights.

Chapter 5.1 Natural Resources – Page 5.1.1 This chapter is in need of editing. It speaks to the importance of an issue that the Natural Resources chapter of the comprehensive plan is 30 pages while only 11 pages are dedicated to the economic development chapter.

Page 5.2.4 Mountain Protection – This section correctly identifies the Mountain Protection Ordinance as being rejected by the community in January 2007. IS there a reason for including this text in the plan? The issue has been resolved. This text should be removed.

Page 5.1.10 Stormwater Management – The plan states “Evidence has shown that, once constructed, many facilities are not maintained properly.” While this may be true in some areas, it is clearly not true in other areas. This text is prejudicial and should be reworded.

Page 5.1.13 Objective 1: Retain Biodiversity in the County – “This information should be used to create a database that includes both landscape features such as habitats and critical slopes areas and species occurrences from point observations. The database should then be included in the County’s Geographical Information System so that County staff and the public can use the information for conservation purposes. The information could also be used in reviewing requests for legislative approvals.” [emphasis added]

Is Albemarle County prepared to limit development in their development area based on the number of species established by a biodiversity inventory? What possible project could be approved under such a standard?

Page 5.1.14 Biodiversity Action Plan “Building on this analysis, the County should develop the action plan based on conserving ecological integrity at the scale of the landscape” Ecological integrity is an undefined buzz word that promotes existing conditions while failing to recognize potential ecological benefits of development (or redevelopment) This entire concept should be removed from the plan

Page 5.1.15 Strategies – In no other chapter does the work of the comprehensive plan fall so directly on one group of unelected individuals. The Natural Heritage Committee is continually mentioned as a resource and an “expert” on Biodiversity. Interestingly this group has lost more than half of its members in the last year and the clerk’s office has not received any interested applicants in the last two months.

Page 5.1.19 Strategy 4d.3 – “Apply a general risk management approach to the public water supply watershed whereby land use management takes priority over design and best management practices (BMPs) to reduce or eliminate risk from land development activities.” Reading between the lines of this dense statement, it suggests regardless of placement in the development areas, any parcel should not be developed if it is within the public water supply watershed. This could be read as a call for no development. This is absurd.

Page 5.1.19 Strategy 4e.1 – The explanation of groundwater is overly verbose and at times nonsensical. The suggestion that “A new well may also draw water from the flow that is going to a different resident’s well” is gently worded enough to be technically correct but contradicts testimony provided to the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors from then Water resource Manager David Hirshman.

Chapter 5.2 Historic, Cultural, and Scenic Resources – Page 5.2.3 “Moreover the number of resources destroyed in recent years suggests that continued reliance on solely voluntary measures would not be adequate to protect those resources. Instead a combination of strategies is necessary, including voluntary techniques, regulation, education and financial incentives.” The Free Enterprise Forum calls for regulation to be removed from the strategies listed. This community has a firm desire for voluntary measures and incentives but Historic Preservation Ordinances are unacceptable.

Page 5.2.8 – No one of the strategies for historic preservation includes the phrase with the consent of the property owner.

Page 5.2.10 Strategy 2b1: “Adopt a historic overlay district ordinance to recognize and protect historic, architectural, and cultural resources, including individual sites and districts at the local level”. We acknowledge that this language exists in the current comprehensive plan but we have not seen significant public support for a new confiscatory historic overlay. The Free Enterprise Forum asks that this language be struck from the Comprehensive Plan.

Page 5.2.10 Strategy 2.b.3: “Expand the authority of the Architectural Review Board (ARB) to include the review required under the recommended historic district overlay ordinance. Revise the make up of the ARB to include members with expertise in historic preservation and revise the name of the group accordingly”. Considering our significant concerns with the existing regulatory over reach of the ARB, the Free Enterprise Forum does not support the creation of the Super ARB and ask that it be struck from the Comprehensive Plan.

Page 5.2.10 Strategy 2b.7: “To discourage the destruction of important historic resources, seek enabling legislation that would allow the County to impose meaningful civil penalty for inappropriate demolition, razing or moving of any designated historic resource. This enabling legislation should also authorize the County to use civil penalties collected to fund components of the County’s historic preservation program.” The fact that the County can’t work with existing legislative authority and is seeking to develop a civil penalty slush fund to be used for preservation suggests this is not a true priority for the County. If the county wishes to preserve a historic building or landscape – they should buy it.

Page 5.2.12 Strategy 4a: “The County should help protect Monticello’s viewshed using these measures:” The Free Enterprise Forum has been very outspoken on this issue. Time and again when we raise the issue we have been told this is a voluntary program. Reading the introductory statement this is not voluntary it is declarative.

While we believe all of strategy 4a should be dropped, we ask that if you consider retaining any language it be improved to recognize that the “protection” Monticello is seeking is at the cost of other tax paying property owners rights. Perhaps change this directive to encourage communication (not cooperation) between Monticello and other private property owners regarding visual impacts (not viewshed).

Page 5.2.12 Strategy 4a.5: “Staff should be aware of the Viewshed area and be especially careful when applying land use regulations to properties in the viewshed.” Again we believe the whole section should be dropped but this is ridiculous is staff NOT to be careful in applying land use regulations elsewhere in the County. This is superfluous and suggests additional special treatment that does not exist in code!

Page 5.2.14 Cultural and Scenic resources (last paragraph): “Existing regulations only go so far in protecting the resources. Greater ability to regulate aesthetics is desired to help preserve these qualities“. Recognizing the balance of this chapter calls for increased regulatory powers and aesthetic controls, the Free Enterprise Forum asks how this balances with the “desire” for economic development. Albemarle County is at a critical tipping point where over regulation, while seeking to maintain the existing condition, may forestall the economic advancement of the community.

Page 5.2.21 Plan for Scenic Resources Objective 1: Support wider enabling legislation for regulating aesthetics in specified areas of importance.” Once again the desires of the property owners will be secondary to the powers of regulations for “areas of importance” This objective and the following strategy should be dropped from the plan.

Page 5.2.21 Strategy 1a: “Support enabling legislation for Albemarle County to provide for a scenic protection and tourist enhancement overlay district”. Based on the Free Enterprise Forum’s opposition to the Monticello viewshed overlay one can imagine we are equally, if not more, concerned with the concept of a tourism enhancement overlay district that would hinder the property rights of Albemarle citizens. We do not believe this is the general direction of the Board of Supervisors at this time and question whether the Planning Commission, utilizing Zero Based Planning, has fully vetted this question. If such a proposal were to go forward, the Free Enterprise Forum promises to fight it at the local and state level.

Page 5.2.22 Strategy 2f: “ Consider additional EC [Entrance Corridor] designations as appropriate, or as road classifications change for roads such as the John W. Warner Parkway, Route 614 (Sugar Hollow Road), Route 692/712 Plank Road, and Route 810 (Brown’s Gap Turnpike)”. Albemarle County today has 19 Entrance Corridors. The Free Enterprise Forum believes this is a gross misuse of the enabling legislation. The Free Enterprise Forum asks that the number of entrance corridors be reduced to ten and that no new road may be added as an entrance corridor unless one is removed.

Page 5.2.23 Strategy 2g: “Review the EC guidelines for effectiveness in protecting the integrity of exceptionally scenic EC corridors, such as Route 250 West.” Now the EC guidelines are not enough the concept is to plan for super guidelines for those “exceptional corridors”. If Albemarle County is serious about create protection for the exceptional, the Free Enterprise Forum suggests simply reducing the number of Entrance Corridors and implementing the exceptional strategies on that reduced number.

The natural progression from this concept is recognized in the last line of this section “recommendations for stricter zoning regulations in the ECs may be an outcome of this review”.

Page 5.2.24 Objective 5: Preserve important views as they relate to tourism and recreational assets. This objective and the strategies supporting it suggest a regulatory solution to the organic change of the community. How does this balance with the economic development [or ecological in the case of controlled burns, timber harvesting].

Page 5.2.24 Strategy 5b: Protect the Monticello viewshed as indicated in the historical Resources Section. – see our comments above

Chapter 5.3 Economic Development: While the Free Enterprise Forum is concerned that the Economic Development chapter is the shortest in the Comprehensive Plan, we applaud the inclusion of this important concept.

We are concerned that the length of the Natural Resources chapter is three times that of Economic Development chapter. While both are important, the Free Enterprise Forum believes ample opportunity exists to balance the chapters to better reflect their equal import.

Chapter 5.4 Land use for the Rural areas. The Free Enterprise Forum applauds the inclusion of economic sustainability as a goal for the rural areas. The best way to keep land in agricultural and forestry uses is to allow ancillary uses to help economically support the primary uses.

Chapter 5.5 Land Use for Development Areas, page 5.5.11: Tables for remaining non-constrained land the tables were not updated by the time the document was released to the public for review. We are eager to see the new numbers and anticipate they will consider the land that is now slated to be Biscuit Run State Park to be “constrained”.

Page 5.5.11: “Several studies over the last seven years have indicated that the County has enough rezoned commercial square footage to last more than 20 years. The Studies did not include analysis of already zoned commercial areas or the potential for redevelopment. Because of the amount of work that has already been done on the topic, staff is not going to perform another retail analysis. Instead, attention will be paid to the land designated for industrial and/or employment uses ”. This is a false choice. There is no reason the Planning Commission (or the BOS) should not demand that a retail analysis be conducted for this 5 year update of the comprehensive plan. While the studies are mentioned they are not cited and in just about every case I am aware of these reports were completed with an agenda (both pro and con). Albemarle should insist a proper accounting of commercial space be conducted as a part of this plan.

Page 5.5.15: Objective 1: Achieve high quality development through the application of Neighborhood Model principles. The phraseology of this objective is troublesome. The Free Enterprise Forum believes most if not all applications that come before the Planning Commission have to balance the principles of the neighborhood model to their projects goals and site limitations. We respectfully suggest that the word “flexible” be placed between through and application to better reflect the reality of development [and redevelopment] in Albemarle County.

Page 5.5.19: “A network of streets and convenient routes for pedestrians, bicyclists, buses and other transit, including the potential for light rail in the future allows alternatives to driving”. Back in 2009, we wrote extensively regarding the population required to support the investment of light rail in any community. While we are aware of the highly popular Tide line in the Virginia Beach area, we also recognize they have significantly higher population to support light rail. This twenty year comprehensive plan does not include such population projections; therefore this reference, while fanciful to many in the planning community, should be removed.

Page 5.5.20 Relegated Parking The Free Enterprise Forum believes the parking regulations in Albemarle County are in need of review and revision. The Comprehensive Plan provides an opportunity to suggest such a review. No other principle has received more attention than so called relegated parking. We call on Albemarle County to review the parking regulations with the Albemarle County Police Community Safety through Environmental Design Officer and report back to the BOS prior to moving forward again endorsing relegated parking in the Comprehensive Plan.

Page 5.5.22 “Review the cash proffer policy to assess what effect it may have on density”. Earlier this year the Free Enterprise Forum provided the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors our white paper “Contradictory Consequences” on cash proffers. We encourage examining our paper, and the examples included, to evaluate the effectiveness of cash proffers on density. We anticipate your findings will be similar to ours that a cash proffer policy encourages by right development at a density and form that is contrary to the County’s approved Comprehensive Plan.

In 2007, Albemarle County looked to Chesterfield County a model for cash proffer legislation. It is interesting that Chesterfield is now contemplating repeal, or at least rolling back, its cash proffer policy. It may be time for Albemarle to take similar action.

Page 5.5.25 Strategy 6b: “Make land use decisions that are consistent with Priority Areas that are established in the Development Area Master Plans. Do not approve proposed rezonings and special use permits outside of the priority areas when planned facilities are not in place to support the project and existing neighborhoods, unless the proposed project will provide significant improvements to ensure adequate infrastructure and services are available to the area”[emphasis added].

As stated above [under growth management] If, as we contend, the County has failed to properly fund and construct concurrent infrastructure, the cost to provide adequate infrastructure to both new and existing residents is now on the private land owner whose development area parcel happens not to fall in the “Priority Area”. For the same reasons as cited above this will accelerate the kind of By Right development the Comprehensive Plan indicates it wishes to avoid. The Free Enterprise Forum is opposed to the se of Priority Areas to reject land use applications that would otherwise have been approved.

Page 5.6.11: “Fund programs of the County’s Housing Department to implement housing policies.” Similar to our concerns regarding the Natural Resource Chapter mandating the County “Hire” an environmental planner, the Free Enterprise Forum does not believe the comprehensive plan is the proper place for the housing department to be requesting additional funding.

Page 5.7.3: “Dispersed development patterns have helped promote a transportation network that is mostly focused on the automobile. In the past a more abundant supply of cheap land and fuel encouraged development patterns that have become hard to sustain”. This anti automobile philosophy is prevalent throughout academic papers in planning. The reality is the automobile is and for the foreseeable future will be the primary form of transportation for the majority of Albemarle’s population. Given advances in fuel economy, hybrid vehicles and transit opportunities, we must question if the current development patterns are really “hard to sustain”?

The Free Enterprise Forum believes multi modal opportunities should be evaluated and implemented but only after recognizing that people who live, work and play in Albemarle County appreciate and invest in the independent mobility of the automobile.

If you have made it this far, thank you. The Free Enterprise Forum is appreciative of the considerable effort of staff, planning commissioners and the public to engage with this document. In addition, thank you for the extension for written comments, as the 3,000+ words above indicate this is a dense document and required time to digest.

We look forward to being a part of the continuing dialog on this issue.

Respectfully Submitted,

Neil Williamson

Neil Williamson is the President of the Free Enterprise Forum, a local government public policy organization located in Charlottesville.  www.freeenterpriseforum.org

Fluvanna Supervisor Advocates “Tax” Donations to County

By. Bryan Rothamel

PALMYRA – A Fluvanna County supervisor has a plan to allow easier and unrestricted access to donate to specific line items in the budget through overpaying a tax bill.

“Folks are saying they want to be taxed higher, this is an opportunity to tax yourself higher and point that extra tax to what you feel most important about,” said Bob Ullenbruch (Palmyra District).

“There’s many different departments that people have a passion for and this gives them the opportunity to put their money where they’re passionate.”

Ullenbruch was alerted by a constituent of an option to give residents a section on tax bills to overpay on purpose. The constituent asked House of Delegate Rob Bell (R-Charlottesville) if an option of unrestricted overpayment for a specific department was allowed. Bell responded that state statute does allow such an option and Prince Edward is the only county to utilize the practice.

On April 8, Ullenbruch met with Commissioner of Revenue Mel Sheridan, Treasurer Linda Lenherr and finance director  Barbara Horlacher to discuss the implementation of such an option. Discussions with Prince Edward about carry out will have to occur but the option could begin as early as the second tax cycle in 2013 (the December tax bill).

The option to overpay would be on both real property and personal property tax bills. There would be the amount to pay based on assessed taxes then a second line asking if the taxpayer would like to contribute extra to any budgeted department the Board of Supervisors funds.

This includes school funding, Sheriff Department, parks and recreation, any non-profit, information technology, finance, etc. The donation is unrestricted for the department.

Ullenbruch said the process after each tax collection would include the Treasurer presenting the Board of Supervisors with the excess tax collection earmarked for each department. The supervisors would then vote to release the funds to the departments. The personnel in charge of the department, or School Board in the case of the school system, then decides how to spend the money, without restriction.

“There’s a difference between [the proposal] and say, I show up to the School Board meeting with a check for $100. They can’t use that money for [much] — they’d have to come in with school supplies or this or that. You can’t donate money into the school budget. In this case, you can,” said Ullenbruch.

Most real property tax bills are never seen by the homeowners. Ullenbruch said a majority of tax bills are paid through mortgage bills. The county could choose to mail a separate ‘bill’ to the homeowner for this excess contribution. Tenants could also decide to contribute excess of whatever the owner pays.

All personal property owners would also see the line for additional tax payment on bills. The line, however, is not directing spending of the taxed amount. In order to utilize the option, the taxpayer has to pay the tax in full.

“On the back of the tax bill it’ll be very clear that it is not a portion of your taxes. It is actual overpayment of your taxes. That one of those things we have to be very clear about that,” said Ullenbruch.

Ullenbruch will propose the option on April 10. He is confident it will pass but expects discussion on how the process will be fully carried out.

——————————————–

The Free Enterprise Forum’s coverage of Fluvanna County is provided by a grant from the Charlottesville Area Association of REALTORS® and by the support of readers like you.

Bryan Rothamel covers Fluvanna County for the Free Enterprise Forum.  He is the founder of the Fluco Blog.  Additional writings can be found at www.Flucoblog.com

Photo Credit: Fluvanna County

Fluvanna Supervisors Discuss Economic Development in Zion Crossroads

By. Bryan Rothamel

The talk of Fluvanna County since the 1990s has been economic development. Finally, Fluvanna is starting to make concrete steps towards actually seeing the long discussed economic development.

During the April 3 work session, the Fluvanna Board of Supervisors heard staff updates on many topics including economic development and a Zion Crossroad update.

“We need economic development because we have to find another way to pay for the services we do need in this county — including schools, education, employees, rescue squad — all those things have to be provided. To put all that burden on the property owners is a pretty heavy burden,” said Joe Chesser (Rivanna District) after the work session.

The director of community planning and development, Bobby Popowicz, told the board of economic projects in the works.

Currently Popowicz is trying to secure and locate a training facility on 750 total acres with 100 usable acres (building footprint, etc.) of the facility. The building would be buffered and hidden by trees.

Also, he is working with the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Fluvanna County Cooperative Extension to find Fluvanna grape growers and land suitable for the regional demand of wine grapes.

Part of this work is including Fluvanna in the Monticello American Viticultural Area for local wineries to buy Fluvanna grapes.

Popowicz biggest focus is bringing an employment center or ‘legacy project’ to Fluvanna. A legacy project is the centerpiece of a major development. It provides a development with a strong nucleus for retail and residential to surround.

Popowicz is targeting a medical facility and a federal research company. One federal contractor he has talked with isn’t looking to expand but did offer to recommend Fluvanna for other companies entering the Central Virginia market.

Finally, Popowicz was approached by his Albemarle counterpart about the possibility of a megasite in the Route 250 Corridor. Such a site would involve a revenue sharing program but would allow both counties to add jobs with easy access to Interstate 64.

This past year Popowicz has worked on getting Fluvanna’s recognition amongst state and local economic development leaders. It has started to pay off with such officials. Popowicz hopes to encourage business expanding in the region to move to Zion Crossroad.

“Water to Zion Crossroads, probably the most important thing we can do,” said Popowicz to the board.

Fluvanna BOS Chair Shaun Kenney

Chairman Shaun Kenney (Columbia District) said after the meeting, “There are still a lot of hurdles we have to clear: we have to get water to Zion Crossroads, we have to get broadband to Zion Crossroads, we have to get sewer to Zion Crossroads. Even when you get all that there, what comes after and in what way?”

The planning department is working on that. Allyson Finchum, director of planning, briefed the board on a Zion Crossroad plan following Popowicz’s presentation.

The Zion Crossroad area has had 10 studies or plans mentioning the area in the last 15 years. Now the county needs one plan for the area and the area only. It could be used in conjunction with the Fluvanna Comprehensive Plan, but one dedicated to the area will help Popowicz match businesses to the county’s plans.

The Virginia Employment Commission, the gold standard in population projection in Virginia, projected Fluvanna’s population will increase to 37,433 by 2020 and 47,010 by 2030. In 2010, Fluvanna had 25,691 residents.

The Zion Crossroad urban development area could have 11,000 to 21,000 new residents over the next 10 to 20 years. The amount of acreage using the rural and suburban density method would require 11,041 to 25,186 acres to accommodate. The traditional neighborhood development method would only require 711 to 1,708 acres.

“[Economic development] means a lot of things. You are going to have to bring in more people but you want to bring in the right businesses to have a sustainable economy,” said Chesser.

By planning to use a traditional neighborhood development, Fluvanna would have to plan for village like developments where employment, retail and residential are in walking distance. It requires legacy projects that Popowicz is actively recruiting.

“There is a quick temptation to building out very quickly which is box stores and townhomes. If you end up doing it that way, sure there is a great short-term benefit, it feels good in the short term.

“But in 15 years, when those box stores go empty and the townhomes degrade, then at what type of condition are you at? This is making sure we do it properly, we do it smart, we do it according to a plan. It is absolutely critical. If we go for the sugar high, we are going to kill ourselves long term. We only have one chance to build out Zion Crossroads right,” said Kenney.

Zion Crossroad actually could set up quite nicely for a traditional neighborhood development. Of the 6,016 total acres in the Route 250 corridor, 3,196 acres are developed. That leaves 2,820 acres undeveloped. There are also pretty well connected areas of undeveloped land.

What comes of it is now for a master plan.

A lot of the discussion around Zion Crossroad is similar to how Short Pump was discussed years ago. That isn’t something Chesser sees as a perfect solution because of the congestion that plagues the area.

He does like elements and basic design of Stonefield in Charlottesville. Stonefield incorporates retail and residential while surrounding Sperry Marine – Northrop Grumman.

“If you can put shopping center behind trees but still have viable businesses like, some of these larger consulting companies. You can even have a manufacturing company out there because manufacturing is so much more aggressive and high tech,” said Chesser.

While the idea of making a master plan seems like another study in the process, Kenney insists this is different. During the work session he credited Crozet having a master plan that helped spark development.

“It is not another study to a study. What this is, at this point in time we’ve collected the data, we know we have an opportunity there, how are we going to seize that opportunity? That’s the difference between now and then,” said Kenney.

The supervisors hope to make decisions on water infrastructure and start a master plan in the coming months.

“We can talk about what we want up there and put a picture for people to see. Hopefully, by showing [a plan], by us invest in that area, someone will come and do the right job. There are some great developers out there that have done things across the country,” said Chesser.

——————————————–

The Free Enterprise Forum’s coverage of Fluvanna County is provided by a grant from the Charlottesville Area Association of REALTORS® and by the support of readers like you.

Bryan Rothamel covers Fluvanna County for the Free Enterprise Forum.  He is the founder of the Fluco Blog.  Additional writings can be found at www.Flucoblog.com

Fluvanna BOS To Lower Tax Burden

PALMYRA — The Fluvanna Board of Supervisors unanimously voted to advertise a budget that includes a tax decrease.

The advertised budget will be for $65,312,998 which includes a real property tax rate of $0.795 per $100 assessed and a personal property tax rate of $4.15 per $100 assessed.

The school funding was raised from the baseline of $12.2 million to $13.75 million but still short of the School Board requested amount of $14.1 million.

“As we incrementally improve, we need to incrementally put back the things that we had taken away. I think everyone recognizes that,” said chairman Shaun Kenney (Columbia District) before the motion was made. “That just doesn’t involve the school system. It involves deputies, it involves county staff, it involves the tax payer. …. Those are things that need to be addressed.”

Mozell Booker (Fork Union District) made the motion and it was seconded by Joe Chesser (Rivanna District).

Booker said before the motion, “Everyone in this room knows I am a strong advocate for education. I would love to be able to say and desire that we were at an equalized rate, that we could fund the schools beyond what they are asking for.

“The only thing I can do is get you a little bit past $0.79 and move it to $0.795. And that would help and bring you to $13.7 [million].”

The vote went quickly without discussion.

At the conclusion of the meeting, Chesser made a motion to reconsider the tax rate motion. It is a Roberts Rule of Order procedure that a motion during a meeting can be ‘called to reconsider’ later in the same meeting. It last was used during a budget advertisement meeting in 2010. It was successful and the board voted to increase the tax rate to help with school funding at the time.

This year the reconsider motion by Chesser and seconded by Booker failed 3-2. Don Weaver (Cunningham District), Bob Ullenbruch (Palmyra District) and Kenney voted against it.

The advertised budget means the supervisors will hold a public hearing on the advertised budget and tax rates. The board can only decrease from the advertised amount. If the board wants to increase from the advertised budget and tax rates, it requires holding another public hearing and advertising in the local newspaper for two consecutive weeks.

The public hearing on this budget and tax rates will be on April 10 at 7 p.m. at the Fluvanna Circuit Courtroom.

Increasing the budget and tax rates is unlikely because it puts a strain on county operations. The first tax bill that reflects the accepted tax rate has a payment deadline of June 5. If the supervisors try to change the timeline, the county treasurer has a limited window to prepare tax bills, send them out and then give time for residents to pay.

Many residents pay the real estate tax through their mortgages. The mortgage companies are not as easy to change the rates on so late in the process. Reportedly, moving the timeline back could cause many delayed payments and other collection issues.

The process of increasing the budget and rates after advertising can be done but it is just unlikely.

The Board of Supervisors next meets on April 3 at 2 p.m. in the Fluvanna Circuit Courtroom. There will be a work session that evening to discuss the budget. A finalized budget is scheduled to pass after the public hearing on April 10.

——————————————–

The Free Enterprise Forum’s coverage of Fluvanna County is provided by a grant from the Charlottesville Area Association of REALTORS® and by the support of readers like you.

Bryan Rothamel covers Fluvanna County for the Free Enterprise Forum.  He is the founder of the Fluco Blog.  Additional writings can be found at www.Flucoblog.com

Greene BOS Adopts Capital Improvement Plan

By. Brent Wilson, Greene County Field Officer

At the February 26^th meeting of the Greene County Board of Supervisors the annual Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) was approved. Minor changes were made to the CIP that the Planning Commission approved back in January. The School System made adjustments to various roof projects and also added a school security system for $175,000 in the school year 2013/2014.

The CIP is a multi-year production and scheduling of capital projects with an appropriate financing plan to fund these projects. Greene examines the CIP is prepared annually in an effort to facilitate planning and setting priorities among capital improvement needs over a subsequent five-year period. The CIP is designed to identify projects for all departments for which funding has already been committed or is being sought for some time within the five-year planning period.

Community Development Director, Bart Svoboda , also mentioned how the CIP is used to develop Cash Proffers  in the county and that the make-up of the departments would be how the funds would be allocated back for any cash proffers collected.

Supervisor Davis Lamb (Ruckersville) asked for a clarification about capital vs. maintenance costs.

Chairman Frydl concluded that the CIP met the state requirement but that the BOS hoped in the future that a CIP will be able to be reviewed in more detail by the five person panel that the Planning Commission recommended on January 16^th. Bart Svoboda agreed that the process needs to be accelerated in the future to allow time to prioritize the requests.

——————————————–

Brent Wilson is the Greene County Field Officer for the Free Enterprise Forum a privately funded public policy organization.

The Free Enterprise Forum Field Officer program is funded by a generous grant from the Charlottesville Area Association of REALTORS® (CAAR) and by readers like you.  To support this important work please donate online at www.freeenterpriseforum.org

Contradictory Consequences White Paper Released

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

“Contradictory Consequences” White Paper Examines Cash Proffers Unintended Negative Impacts

Charlottesville, VA – A new white paper outlines significant negative economic and ecological impacts of cash proffers on community development in Central Virginia.

The Free Enterprise Forum’s “Contradictory Consequences” draws on statewide research and case studies to illustrate the challenges implementing a cash proffer program.

The Albemarle County Fiscal Impact Review Committee is scheduled to discuss recalculating their cash proffer program in March. The committee has been instructed by staff that their role is not to consider the policy discussion but only the mathematical calculation of the proffer amount. The “Contradictory Consequences” paper calls on the Board of Supervisors to “Repeal the Rezoning Ransom”. Specific negative impacts of cash proffers illustrated in the paper include:

· reduced land value

· reduced property tax revenue

· increased “by right” development

· false financial hope

· reduced economic vitality

· reduced adherence to Comprehensive Plan

· increased pressure on rural areas

· increased leapfrog development.

Free Enterprise Forum President Neil Williamson said, “Localities across the Commonwealth are waking up to recognize the siren’s song of cash proffers is too good to be true. Now is the time to contemplate significant proffer reform. Our research suggests repeal of Cash Proffers will result in increased economic vitality and adherence to the comprehensive plan.

“Perhaps the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, and other localities, will take a fresh look at what they are really getting from the cash proffer program and how this policy negatively impacts their vision for the future. Our goal with this independent research is to reach out to the community and start this important discussion,” Williamson said.

“Contradictory Consequences” was written and researched by Free Enterprise Forum President Neil Williamson. Tracking local government since 2002, Williamson’s examination generated a well documented, balanced review of the many legal issues and economic concerns surrounding implementation of a cash proffer policy.

The Free Enterprise Forum is a privately funded, public policy organization. The entire report can be accessed under the reports tab at www.freeenterpriseforum.org.

Fluvanna County Draft Budget Released

By. Bryan Rothamel

Steve Nichols, Fluvanna County Administrator

The budget cycle starts in November but the true discussion amongst the supervisors starts in February with the County Administrator presenting a budget. This staff drafted budget can help shape the conversation.

This budget could fall flat and the supervisors start drafting individual budgets to lead the conversation, as in recent years.

“I think [the budget presentation] was a nice, comfortable, clean process for a starting point. The real work now begins. At least they have a starting point and they were receptive to it,” said Nichols.

Nichols presented a budget that includes a slight tax decrease for real property owners in the county.

Fiscal year 2013′s real property (also known as simply the real estate tax) was $0.5981 per $100 assessed. Because of the reassessment period, that rate is now equalized to $0.81 per $100 assessed.

Nichols’ budget has a real property rate of $0.79 per $100 assessed and keeping the personal property tax rate at $4.15 per $100 assessed.

The budget presented Wednesday decreases revenues by $2.6 million. The majority of the ‘revenue’ lost by using $2.8 million less funds from the county savings, known as the ‘fund balance.’

There would however be a slight increase in property tax revenue, because of things like public utilities now being taxed at a higher rate. The public utilities are not subject to the county’s reassessment period. They are reassessed every year by the state and then just taxed at the local rate.

The yearly assessment does not change much but the county will now tax that property at an additional $0.20 per $100 assessed.

The expenditures of the county have also decreased in Nichols’ budget. Savings in this budget include $571,000 less in debt service, mainly because of the bond refinancing.

The Nichols Budget also has schools getting $13.2 million. Last year the schools were budgeted for $12.5 million but received $13.5 million after additional stopgap appropriations were made over the course of the year.

The largest savings of expenditures Nichols has is a reduction in capital projects. The county has completed costly projects like narrowbanding and has set aside money for replacement of the emergency services radio equipment, a project that had been waiting years to be completed. That project alone was budgeted for $4 million in FY13′s capital improvements plan.

Nichols’ budget also contains changes to the staff health plan and salary adjustments for staff including cost of living increases.

“It is time. We need to take care of our staff. They haven’t been well enough take care of. It’s not that everybody deserves 50 percent pay raises, I don’t mean that at all. We just need to have an iterative process that runs over multiple years and this year is the time to start that,” said Nichols.

The capital improvements plan includes funding for an amphitheater, public safety projects like replacement of phone equipment at the 911 center and water projects including the first state of a water system in the Zion Crossroad area. School projects in the CIP are a new electronic financial system to be inline with the county financial system, renovations at Carysbrook Elementary School and money for school busses.

Now the supervisors get their crack at the budget in earnest. Feb. 13 is a scheduled work session for revenue and expenditures plus hearing agency presentations. Nichols thinks he at least has given them something that can easily be implemented.

“I much prefer giving them something that is doable. If they want to go up from that or down from that, it is certainly their choice. But I wanted to give them something that is doable,” said Nichols.

The Feb. 13 work session is slated to start at 7 p.m. in the Fluvanna Circuit Courtroom.

________________________________

The Free Enterprise Forum’s coverage of Fluvanna County is provided by a grant from the Charlottesville Area Association of REALTORS® and by the support of readers like you.

Bryan Rothamel covers Fluvanna County for the Free Enterprise Forum.  He is the founder of the Fluco Blog.  Additional writings can be found at www.Flucoblog.com

Image Credit: Fluvanna County