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 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

Heavy Handed Albemarle Comp Plan is Not Ready For Prime Time

By. Neil Williamson, President

The 2013 Comprehensive Update to Albemarle County’s Comprehensive Plan is headed to public hearing on Tuesday (4/2) night.  The plan is available online, but the Free Enterprise Forum purchased a hard copy from the Planning Department for the princely sum of $168.

The new plan weighs in at about half the weight of the previous plan and we applaud the use of appendices rather than embedding policies and master plans into the text of the comp plan. 

We are encouraged by the brief (shortest in the Comp Plan) but meaningful chapter on Economic Development as well as the recognition of the importance of agriculture and forestry to the rural areas. We are encouraged that the document asks the question ‘How do Cash Proffers hinder density’.

But with that being said, we find the comprehensive plan to be lacking a consistent, unified voice.  For all the brevity of the Economic Development chapter, there are long winded almost evangelical undercurrents written into the Natural (and Historic) Resources chapters that have little or no concern for the cost of implementation nor property owner rights and do not belong in this planning document. 

  …the County should develop the action plan to focus on conserving ecological integrity at the scale of the landscape.  The landscape approach focuses on a wide scale (square miles rather than square feet) an the management of major land features (e.g., forest blocks, watersheds, urbanized areas) to both conserve ecological diversity and support conservation measures (such as conservation easements) or for restoration efforts.  This plan should also establish conservation approaches for aquatic conservation through land management techniques designed for a specific watershed. (5.1.14)

The concept of a historical protection ordinance has been a flaw in Albemarle County’s comprehensive plan for years.  In this iteration, the concept has been vastly expanded to use GIS technology to create a historic overlay layer and empower (likely without legislative authority) the Architectural Review Board to evaluate development proposals and by right building in and adjacent to the Historic Overlay.

Strategy 2b.3: Expand the Authority of the Architectural Review Board (ARB) to include the review required under the recommended historical overlay district ordinance.  Revise the make-up of the ARB to include members with expertise in historic preservation and revise the name of the board accordingly.

Strategy 2b.4: Establish an advisory review by the ARB of all rezonings, special use permits, site plans, and subdivision plats for proposals located within or abutting a locally designated historic district to ensure that historic preservation considerations are available as part of the decision making process. (5.2.10)

The Free Enterprise Forum has already written extensively about the Monticello Land Grab that is currently drafted into the comp plan has attempted to put into the Comprehensive Plan.  To be clear there is no reason for Monticello’s viewshed to be enumerated in the Comprehensive Plan.  We encourage Monticello to work directly with their neighbors to discuss how each of them exercise their property rights and leave government out of the equation.  

Upon further study, it became clear that Monticello is not the only entity seeking to regulate aesthetics.  Under the Cultural and Scenic resources section the comprehensive plan calls for expanded (again without legislative authority) power for Albemarle County:

The County’s scenic resources are highly valued and contribute both to the quality of life and the tourism economy.  Existing regulations only go so far in protecting the resources.  Greater ability to regulate aesthetics is desired to help preserve these qualities. (5.2.14)

The Transportation chapter section of the Comprehensive Plan needs to be updated to reflect reality.  Without population increases exponentially above the current projection, automobiles will continue to be the dominant form of transportation and home buyers will continue to choose homes that best fit their lifestyle choices rather than being limited by transportation availability.  Highlighting an anti car/anti personal mobility bias the plan states:

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.  Today, and n the future, the local transportation system is faced with the challenge of finding adequate revenue, an aging transportation infrastructure (and an aging population), higher energy prices, and accommodating future population and employment growth….

Since our founding, the Free Enterprise Forum has had issues with the mandated neighborhood model form of development and the manner in which the County has now codified THE MODEL rather than a model.  Considering the importance of this document and our ten years of experience with THE model shouldn’t more time be taken to see how these “principles” have turned out in real projects both good and bad?  In addition, based on all of the evidence light rail will not work in Albemarle County in the next 50 years; why then is it still on page 5.5.19 of the comprehensive plan. 

The Free Enterprise Forum appreciates the significant effort staff and the Planning Commission have put into the document thus far.  We believe there are positives in this iteration but we also believe it could still be better.

We hope that the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors take their time with the document that is supposed to guide our community for the next twenty years.

Respectfully submitted,

Neil Williamson

Neil Williamson is the President of the Free Enterprise Forum, a local government public policy organization located in Charlottesville. The full Contradictory Consequences report can be found at www.freeenterpriseforum.org

 

Should VDOT Force Trucks to Bypass Stanardsville?

By Brent Wilson, Greene County Field Officer

The Route 33 by-pass around Stanardsville in Greene County  was built in 2000.  This project was first envisioned in 1964 as part of the Virginia Arterial System that was designated for 4-laning and bypasses around major towns. The connection between US-33 from I-81 at Harrisonburg to US-29 at Ruckersville was considered an important part of this plan.   Elkton’s bypass was completed in the early 1970’s.  In addition to improving traffic flow on the arterials, such bypasses also reduce the impact of through traffic on the towns bypassed, especially tractor trailers. Logically you would think that “if you build it, they will come”

The reality is for traffic headed East or West, the Bypass works well.

But for traffic coming to and from the North, geometry wins out.

Traffic coming from the north and wanting to cross over to Route 81 have two options to get there. They can take the right triangle of Route 29 South to Ruckersville and head west on Route 33 and take the scenic bypass [16.0 miles]. However, the shorter route is the hypotenuse of the right triangle. From Madison take Route 230 South which ends on the east side of Stanardsville and then turn right through town on Main Street (old Route 33) toward the valley [12.6 miles]. Of course, this works in reverse for traffic heading north.

So, the economics of taking the shorter (less costly route) wins and one of the benefits of the bypass is significantly diluted.  The question is should through truck traffic be prohibited in Stanardsville? 

This issue is significant enough to be included in the Town of Standardsville Comprehensive Plan.

The Main Street of Stanardsville currently sustains an excessive amount of truck traffic, 9% of all vehicles.  This leads to heightened safety concerns, increases need for roadway maintenance, and generates pollution and noise in close proximity to businesses and homes. The route is utilized as a shortcut by trucks travelling eastbound on Route 33 to northbound on Route 29, although there is little evidence that this alternative route saves time on average.

At the February 26^th BOS meeting Supervisor Davis Lamb brought up a citizen’s request to hold a public hearing to discuss the Town of Stanardsville’s  request to consider the restriction of truck traffic in Stanardsville 

Chairman Jim Frydl said the BOS would be willing to hold a public hearing if there were any facts regarding safety issues and concerns.

Fast forward to the March 26^th meeting. Stanardsville Mayor Gary Lowe  was one of 14 people addressing the issue of truck traffic in Stanardsville. Speaking under “other matters from the public” Lowe explained that the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT)  has four criteria to check before they will consider redirecting tractor trailer traffic of which the first three have been met. The fourth step is to have the BOS hold a public hearing and then decide if they will pass a resolution of support that would then be forwarded to VDOT. VDOT would then have up to 9 months to render a decision based on a study of alternative route safety, impact on trucks and does it benefit the community. VDOT must also have support and commitment of local law enforcement before they agree to redirect truck traffic.

Sherriff Steve Smith  addressed the BOS and stated that his department is neutral on the matter but that he could enforce the new restriction if VDOT approved.

The other speakers expressed concerns from safety issues, the streetscape expenditures  to happen this year, noise issues, aesthetic issues, etc. Only one speaker, after listing five negatives about the truck traffic in Stanardsville, offered up a positive – it is less traffic on the bypass.

The BOS made no comment in response to the issues raised under “matters from the public” session of their meeting. The Free Enterprise Forum applauds the public’s participation and encourages the BOS to go forward with the public hearing to allow comments from both sides of this issue.

——————————————–

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

Photo Credits: http://www.wrx900.com/, bing maps 

Monticello’s Comp Plan Land Grab

FORUM WATCH EDITORIAL

By. Neil Williamson, President

“The true foundation of republican government is the equal right of every citizen in his person and property and in their management.” –Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816. ME 15:36

Considering Thomas Jefferson’s strong belief in personal property rights, one must wonder what Jefferson would think of the Foundation that bears his name seeking to use Albemarle County’s Comprehensive Plan to enact ‘voluntary’ restrictions on the property rights of landowners whose properties might be visible from Monticello.

The Free Enterprise Forum sees this as an effective land grab via comprehensive plan.

Please let me explain.

According to Merriam-Webster, the term land grab was first used in the middle 1800′s  “to describe a usually swift acquisition of property (as land or patent rights) often by fraud or force”.

Today, the Thomas Jefferson Foundation Inc., owner and operator of Monticello, is calling for the creation of a “Monticello Protection Area” overlay in Albemarle’s Comprehensive Plan.   The Foundation contends that the view from Monticello is an important part of their dual nonprofit mission of education and preservation.  They are seeking to have input on any development/construction activity that occurs within this “Protection Area”. 

The map below, prepared by Foundation staff and included in the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan, illustrates the vast area Monticello wishes to exercise their ‘voluntary’ design control.

The current iteration of Albemarle County’s Comprehensive Plan includes a significantly smaller Monticello view shed map.  The map below includes both the current (in blue) and proposed (in gray)  view shed maps:

This is a huge increase in area and includes parcels that, due to topography can not be seen from Monticello (example: portions of Avon Street Extended).

Foundation staff provided both the verbiage and the map to be included in the just released Albemarle Comprehensive Plan.   The word voluntary does not appear anywhere in the documents provided.

From the draft Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan (as drafted by the Foundation):

The Monticello Protection Area is defined by the GIS map on file with Albemarle County which depicts all property visible from the Monticello mountaintop.  The intent of the Guidelines for Development within the Monticello Protection Area (MPA) is to protect the historic character of Monticello and the rural character of entrance corridors, particularly as it relates to the visitor experience. The implementation of these guidelines is intended to maintain the historic and rural character of the area for both visitors and residents to improve the economic vitality of this community resource.

Members of the Foundation staff have indicated property owners will not have to abide by their ‘voluntary’ restrictions.  They simply want to make the landowners aware that the view from their very important community asset might be negatively impacted by something the landowner could lawfully do with their property.  The Foundation also wants to suggests ways property owners could change their plans to better suit the desires of the Foundation.

The Free Enterprise Forum believes if included in the Comprehensive Plan, the regulatory reality (different from the true legal standing) is that the Foundation would have effective design control power over all development in the “Monticello Protection Area”. 

The guidelines the Foundation has proposed are exceedingly specific and overreaching.  The Foundation wants to weigh in on the color, arrangement, lighting and even placement of windows on properties they do not own.  They are mandating a seat at the table at every rezoning Albemarle considers in their view shed.  In addition, while they want to have the ability to enjoy the view of properties they don’t own, they specifically do not want windows facing their property.  Lest you think we have overstated these voluntary restrictions, here is exactly as they appear in the Draft Comprehensive plan:

Bright pastels and whites on exterior faces of buildings and roofs can be distracting when viewing the natural landscape from Monticello. Muted colors for roofs and walls that blend with the natural landscape (ie. mid-spectrum browns and greys, sandy tones) can be substituted for bright pastels and whites on building faces and roofs.

To minimize impact, avoid large roof expanses, especially those of one color—mottled coloring that combines light and dark elements for roofs is preferred.

Surfaces that are prone to glare and reflection increase visibility and should be avoided whenever possible.

For example, expansive windows facing Monticello should be avoided.

Flood lights, up- lights and exposed bulbs are more apparent in the night sky than shielded fixtures. Lighting for buildings and parking areas can use shielded fixtures at lower heights to reduce impacts. Whenever possible lighting should not be placed higher than the tree line.

Lighting on the tops of cellular towers should be avoided when possible.

Lighting for buildings and parking areas should use fixtures that reduce/eliminate glare.

Employ techniques that break up massing.

Development that breaks the mature tree line is more apparent than development that is lower than the mature tree line. Special consideration should be given to development which is higher than the mature tree line to camouflage impacts.

Parking can always be broken up with interspersed plantings of trees and other landscaping.

When there is no conflict with Entrance Corridor or Neighborhood Model guidelines, the preferred location for parking is on the far side of buildings as viewed from Monticello.

Landscaping to screen buildings and parking should employ trees which will generate a mature canopy of trees.

Monticello welcomes the opportunity to assist homeowners and developers who are contemplating construction in the MPA. Please contact Monticello with any questions about these guidelines.

Projects that require discretionary land use permits should consider offering a proffer that addresses protection of the views from Monticello. Albemarle County could consider conditions that protect the views from Monticello when special use permits are issued.

Considering the revised map and the voluntary restrictions listed above, development (that the Comprehensive Plan seeks to encourage) just got a great deal more difficult in the Monticello visible development areas of Albemarle County.  In addition, The Free Enterprise Forum questions the legal standing for the existing Monticello view shed protection in the current Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan.   

In 2004, we cheered when the Foundation purchased a neighboring 334 acre parcel now known as Montalto.  This purchase is the proper way to control view shed – you want it — buy it.

When President Thomas Jefferson looked west to the expansion of the United States, he initiated the Louisiana Purchase.  I firmly believe Jefferson would advocate for the protection of property rights over the view shed protections currently proposed.

Despite the fact that they wrote it, the Thomas Jefferson Foundation should now ask the Albemarle County Planning Commission to remove the “Monticello Protection Area” map and the associated  ‘voluntary’ land grab language from the Comprehensive Plan before prior to sending it on to the Board of Supervisors.

As Jefferson wrote “Nothing is ours, which another may deprive us of.” –[Thomas Jefferson to Maria Cosway, 1786. ME 5:440]. 

Respectfully Submitted,

Neil Williamson

Neil Williamson is the President of the Free Enterprise Forum, a local government public policy organization located in Charlottesville. The full Contradictory Consequences report can be found at www.freeenterpriseforum.org

Image Credits:Thomas Jefferson Foundation Inc.

Greene BOS Budget Balancing Act: Capital Needs, Reserve Fund,Tax Rates, Services

By. Brent Wilson

At the March 12th meeting of the Greene County Board of Supervisors   the discussion centered around the Capital Improvement Plan vs. the growth in the Reserve Fund. The BOS had previously approved the county’s CIP in total but had struggled to identify which projects would receive funding in the next 3 to 5 years.

Several projects were immediately identified as needing to be accomplished in the near future – a Rescue Squad building and an expansion to the high school cafeteria (there are four lunch periods starting at 10:42 am due to the lack of space)  – all agreed these need to happen soon. One possible source of funding for the school cafeteria expansion is by retiring of existing school debt.

The BOS discussed whether the new task force on CIPs should handle the prioritization or should a request go back to each department to sort out their critical needs in the next 5 year. Chairman Jim Frydl (Midway) proposed that the BOS request all departments to provide back a list of 5 year must have projects with written justification for each project. This was agreed by all 5 supervisors.

The discussion moved on to how to pay for the projects and whether the Reserve Fund could be a source of funds for some of the projects. Last year the BOS set a policy on how much should be maintained in the Reserve Fund, funded the schools budget request and then earmarked the remaining additional money in the Reserve Fund to various projects.

The Reserve Fund has continued to grow and exceeds the target level by over $4 million. Supervisor Buggs Peyton (Stanardsville) suggested reviewing what balance should be left in the Reserve Fund and then use any amount beyond that to help fund the capital projects that come back from all departments. Chairman Frydl questioned if the BOS wanted to modify the Reserve Fund policy that has already been set at 15% of the annual budget plus one month operating expenses. He suggested that the departmental requests for the next 5 years be compared to the excess Reserve Fund and if additional funds are required then the Board would have to consider a tax increase would be required to fund all projects.

Mr. Peyton said that the CIP is a wish list – “a Sears Catalogue” and he objected to additional taxes for capital projects but he would agree to pull down the Reserve Fund for the water and sewer project. Supervisor Davis Lamb  (Ruckersville) expressed concern about drawing down the Reserve Fund to zero and wanted to avoid going back to borrowing funds to be able to pay ongoing obligations.

Chairman Frydl commented that the preliminary audit has indicated the Reserve Fund is now approximately 32% of the annual budget of $53.5 million or $17.1 million. This compares to a minimum balance of 15% of $53.5 million or $8.0 million plus one month’s budget of $4.5 million for a total of $12.5 million Reserve Fund target. Therefore the Reserve Fund has grown, based on preliminary audit, by approximately $4.6 million since the Reserve Fund was set last spring.

Supervisor Eddie Deane (At-Large) expressed concern that he did not want the county to have to borrow to fund their needs. Discussion followed as to whether all excess Reserve Funds should be allocated to projects or not. This lead to a discussion of the property tax rate, given that the property assessments are expected to decline.

Supervisor Peyton stated that he would not increase taxes but would cut spending to balance the budget, the decision is “easy for me”.  When Mr. Peyton was asked for a clarification whether he meant he wouldn’t support raising the tax rate (generating less tax revenue) or raising total property taxes (equal to that of the prior year) that an equalization rate would provide, he indicated that he opposed an increase in the tax rate. He further explained that raising the tax rate to equalize tax revenue would cause some property taxes to increase and some to decrease and he didn’t believe that was fair.

Chairman Frydl summarized that the BOS needs the list of projects required to be done in the next 5 years. At that time, the BOS will be able to determine if there are enough funds for all projects by using the excess Reserve Fund. If more funds are required then the BOS will need to decide if additional tax revenue is required to fund all projects. He also noted that Albemarle County has acted to advertise an increase in their tax rate to equalize tax revenue since their property values have declined, similar to what Greene County is facing.

The key issue facing Greene County as it listens to each department’s budget request  is that the current tax rate is generating revenue to provide funding for operating budgets and growth in the Reserve Fund which is being used as a source of capital fund.

If the property tax rate is not equalized then there will be less tax revenue coming into the county which will result in less funds flowing to the Reserve Fund.  A decision will have to be made whether to maintain current levels of operating expenses by tapping into the reserve funds or use those funds for capital projects. There will not be enough revenue to do both.

——————————————–

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

‘Rezoning Ransom’: Repeal cash proffers

This editorial first appeared in The Daily Progress on Sunday March 3, 2013.  The full “Contradictory Consequences” white paper can be found at www.freeenterpriseforum.org under the reports tab.  The Free Enterprise Forum is a privately funded public policy organization focused on local government in the Central Virginia region.

 

By. Neil Williamson, President, Free Enterprise Forum

There are times you have to say no to one thing because you said yes to something else. Such is the case with cash proffers.

If a community believes in citizen vetted comprehensive planning, preserving rural areas by densification of development areas and economic vitality, then such a community must say no to the fatally flawed cash proffer system.

In the recently released “Contradictory Consequences” white paper, the Free Enterprise Forum research and case studies explain the impacts of cash proffers. Sold to the public as a way to make growth pay for itself, the unintended negative economic and planning impacts have caused localities across the Commonwealth to repeal this “rezoning ransom” and replace these funds with more dependable and equitable infrastructure funding options. Today, rather than simply recalibrating their cash proffer calculation, as Albemarle County is doing, full repeal is a much more economically and ecologically sensible and sustainable alternative.

Cash proffers are per unit fees “voluntarily” extracted from applicants seeking to rezone their property. In theory, such “voluntary” proffers would be directly tied to the costs associated with the increased density of a rezoning. In reality, cash proffers lower land values, encourage development contrary to comprehensive plans, and create false hope for outside infrastructure funding.

Lower land values, lower property tax revenue – In concept, cash proffers are voluntary payments made by landowners to mitigate the impacts of changing the prescriptive zoning on their property. The concept works best when the rezoned value exceeds the increased cost of the proffer. Such a symbiotic relationship is difficult to achieve with automatic inflation increasing cash proffers and fickle housing markets not keeping pace.

Albemarle	Single Family Detached $19,753Townhouse $13,432Multi Family $13,996
Charlottesville	No cash proffers
Greene	$5,778 per unit
Fluvanna	$6,577 per unit
Louisa	$4,362 per unit
Nelson	No cash proffers

Basic economic theory indicates any increased cost must be paid by an entity that is a part of the transaction. Many believe the increased cost of a cash proffer will be borne by the end user, the new homebuyer. This can only occur in a housing market that has constant upward motion.

If, due to market conditions, the end user is not available to accept the cost of the cash proffer it is the land owner, whose land will be discounted by the increased entitlement costs that cash proffers create. In turn, such reduced land values reduce the locality’s real estate tax assessed value and revenue (absent an increase in the tax rate).

‘By Right’ Development Encouraged Charlottesville and Albemarle are currently updating their State mandated comprehensive plans. These community vetted plans suggest the manner in which the locality wishes to grow in the next twenty years.

In many, if not most, cases the zoning in a locality’s development area does not match the comprehensive plan designation. While the property owner does not have to agree to the comprehensive plan changes, they cannot act on those new designations until they have rezoned the property. Alternatively, if the land owner chooses to move forward with the existing, some might call “stale”, zoning, which likely does not agree with the locality’s comprehensive plan, they can do so immediately without paying any cash proffers.

In 2011, a developer acquired the rights to a project that included property in The City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County. Charlottesville does not have a cash proffer, while Albemarle’s exceeds $19,000 per single family home. After calculating the increased value of the land with the rezoning in each locality, the developer chose to rezone the property that was in the City (without cash proffers) and chose NOT to rezone the property in the county. This calculated decision was based on calculation of the cost (in money and time) of rezoning the County land exceeded the increase value.

Therefore, the land owner is incentivized to not to follow the community vetted comprehensive plan vision but instead to construct lower density, less thoughtfully designed developments. These projects are built to meet local building and zoning code but absent the enhancements and flexibility a rezoning might allow.

False Financial Hope – Forecasting cash proffer revenue is much like predicting snow in Central Virginia, localities do not know when it is coming, how much they are actually going to get or when it will stop. Cash proffers rarely, if ever, total the amounts localities are banking on.

In November 2012, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors was presented a staff report outlining cash proffers that were in excess of $49.3 million dollars quite literally off the chart.

As one looks at this chart (right) and sees almost $50 Million dollars proffered, one might anticipate the cash proffer program is answering the very need it was designed but the Free Enterprise Forum estimates at least 28% of those proffers will never be collected as they are associated with the now defunct Biscuit Run Development.

It is interesting that while the State of Virginia acquired the property for a state park on December 31, 2009, Albemarle County continued to calculate those proffers as receivable in November 2012.

Rural Areas Jeopardized – According to the Piedmont Environmental Council, Albemarle County has in excess of 10,000 units already rezoned for residential development. Why have these not moved forward?

Have the embedded costs of development in Albemarle County, including cash proffers, created a cost burden the market is unable to bear?

If growth trends continue, won’t these embedded costs push residential development out of Albemarle County’s designated growth areas and into the rural areas?

The reality is that cash proffers contribute to the paradigm that rural residential development remains the least expensive, most profitable development option in Albemarle County.

If the cash proffers are pushing development into the rural areas and surrounding localities, what are the community costs of increased traffic, more costly government services delivery, as well as loss of ecologically contributing farmland, and productivity?

Cash proffers have produced a plethora of Contradictory Consequences without achieving significant benefit. Now is the time to repeal this rezoning ransom and replace it with a more sensible and equitable alternative.

Neil Williamson is the President of the Free Enterprise Forum, a local government public policy organization located in Charlottesville. The full Contradictory Consequences report can be found at www.freeenterpriseforum.org

Is the Louisa/Fluvanna James RIver Pipeline Back?

By. Bryan Rothamel

LOUISA — The James River water pipeline is getting a second look.

The Louisa Board of Supervisors has sent notice, calling a special meeting to be held in Fluvanna with the Fluvanna Board of Supervisors. The Louisa notice states the two boards will meet to ‘discuss the James River Water Project.’

The notice says at 6 p.m. on March 6 in Palmyra. The Fluvanna supervisors have a normally scheduled meeting that day and do not require additional notice beyond the routine meeting notice.

The James River Water Authority, while still a legal entity, has not be active for years. Both counties paid money for the JRWA to defend it legally but it has not been seriously discussed since the summer of 2010 when the two parties split from discussing a water project.

The endeavor was officially canceled, but not disbanded, by Louisa on Aug. 17, 2010 when then Louisa supervisors felt Fluvanna stop acting in good faith towards making a financial decision. Fluvanna’s then leadership allowed a Aug. 16, 2010 Virginia Resource Authority application deadline for financing pass without an application.

There was a Memorandum of Understanding about a possible James River water pipeline  and until that August 2010 deadline, Louisa supervisors were willing to pay for up to half the water pipeline had it met “reasonable standards for costs and water age.” Louisa’s only public concern was to get water from the James River, across Fluvanna and to the Zion Crossroad planning area.

At the time, discussions in Fluvanna raised questions about extending the debt load of the county when the high school debt payments had not fully started. Some residents also voiced concerns about paying half the costs of a water line that would send water directly to where, Fluvanna residents felt, Louisa competed with Fluvanna the most, the Zion Crossroad economic development.

Louisa leaders countered in the Aug. 17, 2010 press release and follow up interviews with Louisa’s availability for future growth was much more limited than Fluvanna’s possible future growth because of Green Springs Historical District. The historical district is federally protected from development. Fluvanna has no such limitations.

Louisa leaders also said Fluvanna could strategically place the pipeline to hit major economic areas inside Fluvanna before even getting to Zion Crossroad. The proposed route was over 22 miles, winding through Pleasant Grove, near Lake Monticello and down Route 250.

The biggest issue about take water from the James River for either county is neither county owns the withdrawal permit. The JRWA owns the permit to take any water from the river. Neither county can get that permit without the authority relinquishing control. The JRWA board has three Fluvanna members and three Louisa members.

Reportedly, the JRWA has not met beyond keeping up with regulated bylaws. The Louisa County’s website last has minutes for the JRWA board dating January 2010. Fluvanna’s last published minutes are February 2010.

The joint Louisa-Fluvanna meeting will happen on March 6 although discussions with Fluvanna sources say the Fluvanna supervisors will have additional agenda items to accomplish before meeting with Louisa.

——————————————–

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 School Board Requests Level Funding

By. Brent Wilson, Field Officer

The Greene County Board of Supervisors and School Board held a joint public input session on Tuesday, January 15^th to begin dialogue with the public in anticipation of a difficult budget process.

Jim Frydl (Midway District), Chairman of the Board of Supervisors, started the evening stating the purpose of the meeting was to get feedback from the public on what is important in a time when real estate assessments are down, there are added state and federal requirements and the county must start paying for the water and sewer system. County staff has told the Board of Supervisors of a projected $800,000 to $1 million in lower county revenue, primarily due to reduced property assessment. Greene Treasurer Stephanie Deal reports increases in real estate, personal property and sales taxes that total over $350,000 in 2012 vs. 2011.

Michelle Flynn, Chair of the School Board, made a brief presentation  stating that revenue from the State is projected to decline by $232,000 due to flat enrollment and that Federal sequestration – if it occurs – would reduce Federal funds by $125,000. The presentation noted that “Local tax rate increase will be required just to equalize local revenues due to lower assessment values”.

The largest item presented as a cost cutting option is a reduction of 32 positions that total $913,000. Governor McDonnell has announced a 2% increase in teacher wages but 1% of that increase would have to be paid by the county and that tenure would be extended after 5 years instead of 3 years adds to the School Board’s request.

The total for all projected cuts and cost increases from state and federal sources along with other cost increases such as fuel and insurance came to $675,000. Flynn summarized the reductions to the school budget from 2008 of over $3 million. The School Board is asking that the Board of Supervisors provides the same funding as this year for the 2013/2014 school year.

Following the presentations, it was time to hear from the public. This meeting was quite a different setting than the last time the BOS met the public to talk about budgets. Only 12 citizens spoke on a variety of issues from the school system, JABA , the Senior Center , the Shelter for Help and Emergency and the Greene County Public Library . Two of the speakers asked for more information related to the school system – how much needs to be cut, how much would cutting athletics contribute, how is the school budget spent, etc. One speaker asked not to have taxes raised as it makes it hard for seniors on fixed income.

The other speakers gave comments to support their organizations. Kiki Flood didn’t want to see any budget cut and wants the schools to get increased funding. Karen Fisk from the Greene County Library asked that their hours of operation be expanded by eight hours a week to better match the need from Piedmont Virginia Community College  classes starting in the upstairs of their building. The final speaker was David Morris who grew up in Greene and went on to earn a masters degree and had a career in social work. He has moved back to Greene and supports putting education on a high priority as it is preparing our kids for tomorrow.

Each member of the Board of Supervisors and School Board then summarized the meeting. Flynn thanked the Board of Supervisors for attending and invited the public to their workshop on January 23^rd.

Supervisor Davis Lamb (Ruckersville) commented on the poor ranking of US students in the world  and that we must improve.

Supervisor “Buggs” Peyton

Supervisor Clarence “Buggs” Peyton (Stanardsville)  expressed concern about the reduction in assessed value of property and subsequent reduction in property tax revenue. He felt this year will come down to cutting spending or raising taxes. Last year the reserve fund was depleted and Greene County now needs to be conservative in its spending. His final comment was that he wouldn’t support an increase in the tax rate and he wouldn’t compromise his beliefs unless the schools were seriously in jeopardy.

Finally, BOS Chairman Frydl commented that the Board of Supervisors is scheduled to receive an update on the reserve fund in February.  His final comment was that we all will have to do more with less and believes that most citizens in Greene County will be disappointed in the budget as there is less revenue available and more demands from the state.

The Free Enterprise Forum applauds the two boards to begin the dialogue in this difficult process early. While the number of speakers was significantly reduced from the hearing held this Spring, including the public as a vested third party is critical.

Hopefully, the two elected board retain this level of communication and transparency.  The next few months of the budget will include several ups and downs regarding proposed state and federal funding. 

In addition, citizens and elected officials  must understand the fiscal impacts of reduced property assessment.  While many, perhaps most, citizens, would prefer to pay lower taxes; the locality must balance its budget.  If revenue is reduced, spending on local government services, including schools, will be impacted. 

The annual budget question is how the Board of Supervisors chooses to balance spending and revenue.  The fact that the School Board and Citizens are both engaged at this stage of the process is a good thing.  Will they maintain this level of communication and transparency?  Will citizens remain engaged in the byzantine budget process?  Stay tuned.

——————————————–

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

Insurance Institute for Highway Safety Expands in Greene

By. Brent Wilson, Greene County Field Officer

Typically a rezoning request brings up concerns, both pro and con. However, the Greene County Board of Supervisors  had nothing but compliments and positive comments for the Insurance Institute For Highway Safety’s (IIHS)  request for a rezoning from A-1 Agricultural to M-1 Industrial at their December 11^th meeting.

IIHS’s Chief Administrative Officer Joe Nolan and VP of Operations of the Vehicle Research Center Raul Arbelaez  requested that an additional 25.4 acres be rezoned from the 135.4 acres that IIHS has on Dairy Road.

The main reason for the $30 million expansion is to construct a year round domed testing facility so that crash avoidance tests can be performed. The new structure would be similar to the Charlottesville Amphitheater on the Downtown Mall, IIHS would construct a 5 section structure covering 5 acres.

In addition, a 20,000 square foot facility housing 20 offices and a conference facility along with 2 trackside buildings would be constructed. Ten new positions are to be added to the current 35 employees consisting of engineers, research scientists and test drivers plus IIHS is looking to transfer some of their 66 employees in Arlington, Va. to Greene. Construction is targeted to begin in 2013.

Bart Svoboda, Greene’s Zoning Official, outlined in his presentation the project and described the impact to the surroundings as minimal. The operation sits back from Dairy Road and the property slopes away from the highway and therefore there is little visual impact and the noise level would be similar to that of a parking lot.

Chairman Buggs Peyton was excited that IIHS is expanding in Greene County. He was encouraged by the opportunity for new employment and that the tax base may increase with no additional services from the county. The remaining four supervisors all had complimentary remarks for IIHS.

Supervisor Jim Frydl commended IIHS for being a very good corporate neighbor and a great asset to Greene County. Supervisor Davis Lamb appreciated the fact that the business is friendly to the environment and thanked IIHS for being in Greene.

Supervisor Eddie Deane said it’s always good to see reports on the national news from their facility in Ruckersville, Virginia. Supervisor David Cox also appreciates what IIHS has done for Greene County and encouraged the county to pursue more businesses to relocate to Greene similar to IIHS.

While Chairman Peyton indicated IIHS will require no additional direct services from Greene County, the additional employees living in Greene for any business add to the demand for services such as education, police, fire, rescue, etc.  These individuals also add to a growing Greene consumer base that supports other economic development in the County.

While no fiscal impact study was completed, it is anticipated that the types of positions being added/relocated by IIHS will have income to support homes that would generate significant property tax revenue.  In addition, any improvements to the land at the current facility would also increase not only the property tax rolls but also the machine and tool taxes.

——————————————–

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