Tag Archives: Albemarle

Albemarle Passes The Bucks ($1.4 Million) To Unelected CACs

By Neil Williamson, President

piggy-bankIn Wednesday’s (2/1) meeting, without so much as a formal public hearing, Albemarle County’s Board of Supervisors plans to send a $1.4 million dollar piggy bank to the unelected Citizen Advisory Councils so that the elected officials don’t have to make the hard budget choices.

Nothing they are doing is illegal, it’s just not right.  Please let me explain.

Albemarle’s annual Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Budget is laborious and involves significant number of staff hours to determine the staff priority for Capital projects such as vehicles, buildings and renovations.

Over the last 13 years the Free Enterprise Forum has been impressed with the level of detail and careful consideration the CIP committee (including citizen representation and 2 elected BOS members) have put into these discussions.  There have been times when one geographic portion of the development areas had CIP projects that garnered higher scores by the committee and these were funded rather than less urgent projects.

The new “Neighborhood Funding Initiative” would siphon off $1.4 million of the annual CIP budget and allocate it geographically and by population.  The staff has proposed a formula to accomplish this task:

17-155 - Proposed Allocation of Funding - View

Staff has simply developed this Board driven concept.  In fact, the staff report hints at a better manner to utilize citizen involvement along with the elected officials within the current CIP process.

staff has conducted best practices research which is summarized as Attachment A that revealed that the majority of these types of community focused improvement funding programs fall into three basic categories:  neighborhood matching grants; formal citizen involvement in capital planning; and citizen-driven Capital Improvement Programs. After hearing the Board’s discussion, staff thinks that the third category may most clearly align with the Board’s preferences, so the program has been designed along those lines.  If the Board would like this program to be more closely incorporated in the already existing CIP review, evaluation and ranking process that would be another viable approach.

The Free Enterprise Forum has long been a critic of the unelected CACs.

In 2009 we wrote:

The Free Enterprise Forum believes citizen groups (including us) should have the ability to be active participants in the workings of local government.  That being said, we are increasingly concerned that the leadership function of some Boards and Commissions may be inappropriately delegating to community organizations.

With the proposed policy change, beyond effective regulatory veto power over development projects that would advance the community vetted comprehensive plan, Albemarle now seems poised to give these unelected “mission creeping” Citizen Advisory Councils the county purse strings as well.

As the Supervisors continue to delegate, I wonder what will be left for them to do … besides run for reelection.

As we said in 2009:

In the end, elected leaders must lead, not delegate, if citizens don’t like the direction they should replace the leaders.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.  Stay tuned.

Respectfully Submitted,

 

Neil Williamson

———————————————————————-

Neil Williamson is the President of The Free Enterprise Forum, a public policy organization covering the City of Charlottesville as well as Albemarle, Greene, Fluvanna and Nelson County.  For more information visit the website www.freeenterpriseforum.org

Albemarle Prefers Pigs over Pinot

By. Neil Williamson, President

Albemarle County has a large number of wineries and vineyards as a part of its agricultural economy.  The Monticello Wine Trail, which includes all of Albemarle, produces roughly 1/2 of all the wine produced in the Commonwealth.

According to the Washington Post:

Virginia ranks fifth in the nation in the number of wineries — with more than 255 — and is the nation’s fifth-largest wine grape producer, officials said. According to a 2011 economic impact study, the wine industry contributes almost $750 million to the state’s economy on an annual basis.

More than 1.6 million tourists visited Virginia wineries in 2013.

Albemarle County’s official website includes a page to “Discover your Albemarle Crush”

pigsWhy then is Albemarle now proposing new regulations that prefer swine over wine?

If the proposed regulations are adopted, a landowner may have a pig pen directly on the property line but a tasting room, parking lot or even a tent for a winery event must be set back 125’.

Rather than valuing the viticultural operations and allowing these rural farms to operate most efficiently (including events), Albemarle is seeking to dictate many of the business decisions including, tent setbacks, hours of operation and even how they bottle their product.

But this is FAR beyond the Supervisors original intent.

Please let me explain.

Last March, the Board of Supervisors determined that they wanted to create a more direct linkage between Albemarle County agricultural use and the ability to hold events at farm wineries, farm breweries, and farm distilleries (FWBDs).

The 1979 Virginia state law, which was designed to promote viticulture in the state, allows farm wineries to utilize leased vineyards anywhere in the state.  Albemarle, seeing to promote viticulture in Albemarle and prevent “faux” farm wineries from becoming by right event spaces in the rural areas, asked staff to address this concern in new event regulations.

WHEREAS, conducting such activities and events on lands designated Rural Area in the Comprehensive Plan and on lands zoned Rural Areas where there is little or no connection to agriculture is contrary to the policies in the Rural Area section of the Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of the Rural Areas zoning district; and

WHEREAS, in order to address these concerns, it is desired to conduct a new study of the relationship between activities and events at FWBDs, their agricultural nature, whether the activities and events are usual and customary as agricultural activities and events, whether and under what circumstances the activities and events are creating adverse impacts on other properties, and the economic impact of any such regulations that may be considered to address these concerns; and

WHEREAS, if the study so warrants, it is desired to consider amending the zoning regulations by strengthening the requisite relationship between agriculture and the activities and events at FWBDs, reasonably addressing any adverse impacts by performance standards or other means identified in the study in order to protect the public health, safety or general welfare, and to address any other issue identified in the study deemed to be necessary and appropriate. Emphasis Added – nw

Staff used the last line in the last Whereas to be a blank check to impact the very business operations of the FWBDs.

While the Free Enterprise Forum is understanding of mandating 5 acres of on site planted acreage to hold events, therby tying agriculture to the events,  the balance of the proposed ordinance goes too far:

1.  Increasing setbacks from 75’ front/25’ side/35’ rear to 125’ from property line.

This relatively arbitrary increase seems to be directed at mitigating impact on the neighbors.  Proper enforcement of existing regulations would seem to be a better less property rights limiting manner to achieve the same result.

In addition, when queries via email regarding agricultural setbacks the Zoning Administrator:

There is no Albemarle County zoning setback for those things [livestock].  We also don’t have setbacks for fencing in general.

Clearly, if enacted as drafted the setbacks portion of this code would significantly favor slopping hogs over sipping hops near the property line.

2. Mandating and not defining “regular hours open to the public”

The concept behind this suggestion is good; any winery seeking to hold events should have enough wine to sell to the public regularly.  Unfortunately, the concept does not hold up to close examination.  Today there are nearly 300 Napa Valley (CA) wineries operating on a ‘By Appointment only’ including such industry stalwarts such as Opus One and Duckhorn Vineyards.  There are a number of high end wineries with significant production in Virginia operating under a similar business model (RDV, Boxwood Estate, etc.).  One local winery (Mountfair Winery) is now closed to the public selling the majority of their production via their wine club.  From their website:

Mountfair Vineyards A private club winery! Mountfair Vineyards, nestled at the base of the Blue Ridge near Charlottesville, is a family owned and operated Club Winery serving our club members through appointment and special events. Mountfair is no longer open for regular tasting room hours.

Considering the reduced neighbor impact of an appointment only winery, why should Montfair (or other properties like them) be excluded from holding events?

This market reality raises the question why Albemarle would seek to require wineries that need not be open to make their business model work open their doors to hold events.

Further, a lack of definition of “regular hours” allows the zoning administrator (and her successors) significant latitude in their interpretation of the code.

3.  Punishing the Sunday Bride – Curfew on amplified music.

Currently there is no curfew on amplified music beyond the noise ordinance.  Staff heard loud and clear (pun intended) in the Joint Board of Supervisors/Planning Commission meeting that current practice is to stop all amplified music at 11 pm on Friday, Saturday and Sunday nights.  Rather than accepting a self imposed industry practice and adopting it as code staff selected 10 pm on Sunday night to be the cut off.

One winery, who has been commended for their noise cancelling practices, indicated 20% of their wedding business is Sunday weddings.  If we assume the wedding season runs from May – October (6 months), allowing an 11 pm Sunday cutoff would amount to 24 additional hours of operation (if all dates were booked).  Why not accept the market reality and be done with this – enforce the noise ordinance without punishing the Sunday bride.

Albemarle wineries and cideries (more than breweries and distilleries) have a long history of being good neighbors and benefiting the local economy with their events.  Albemarle can tie the event ordinance to the land but should step away from the mission creep of dictating the business activities on the land.

Respectfully Submitted,

Neil Williamson, President

Neil Williamson is the President of The Free Enterprise Forum, a privately funded public policy organization covering the City of Charlottesville as well as Albemarle, Greene, Fluvanna, Louisa and  Nelson County.

Photo Credit: http://www.droid-life.com/2014/08/13/t-mobile-identifies-data-hogs-p2p/

 

2016 – A Year of Exits (Executive and Grade Separated)

By. Neil Williamson, President

https://freeenterpriseforum.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/top-ten-list.jpg?w=179&h=161At this time each year, I take time to look in the rearview and see what issues we have covered that have garnered the most attention.  As usual, I am amazed, and thankful, for the large number of people who read and financially support our work.

Here are the Free Enterprise Forum Top Ten 2016 Shaking My Head (SMH) Moments

#10 Is Charlottesville the $17.86 Million Court Jester?

Imagine you are a mayor or a City Manager, if a major employer and economic driver in your city was poised to leave, how would you respond?Image result for Court Jester

Perhaps its just me, but I would likely fight like heck to keep them in the city.  It is much easier to retain a major employer than to attract one.

But what if the employer is actually an arm of a neighboring government, should that matter? …

If Albemarle decides to bring $17.86 million of ‘County’ economic activity back to Albemarle, Charlottesville may end up looking as wise as the Court Jester this Halloween.

 

#9 Bananas and Albemarle’s Outdated Economic Opportunity Map

Imagine being in the banana business — and you have no way to obtain fruit.Image result for Albemarle county development area

That is Albemarle County’s current economic development sales position: “Yes, we have no bananas.”

“If a manufacturer calls interested in locating near a highway, we tell them, ‘We have nothing for you,’. Prospect businesses are looking to move within three to six months if they are not looking to build. We tell them, ‘We have no product ready to go today.’” – Faith McClintic, Albemarle County’s economic development director

#8 Greene Supervisors Approve Overspending FY17 Budget

By. Brent Wilson, Field Officer

In just the second month of the new budget cycle, the Greene County Board of Supervisors discussed clip_image002two issues last night (8/23) that would allow the county to spend nearly $33,000 over the approved FY17 budget.

The first issue that County Administrator John Barkley explained was that several positions are needed to be brought up to market value. He further explained that supplemental funds are being requested to fund the $27,250 for the reclassification of positions. Surplus funds from the FY16 budget will allow the county to be able to fund this request.

#7 C’ville’s Hydraulic Houdini

What would you call it when Charlottesville works to make a primary pillar of an integrated

Trafficit knot  @ Proff Rd             Trafficlymead Town Center             @ Hol                       knotTrafficLakes ...

transportation program disappear?

The Hydraulic Houdini.

Please let me explain.

Those with even decent short term memory can remember the argument over the now defunct Western Bypass and the Route 29 “Solutions”.  Rather than building a limited access bypass around Charlottesville’s congestion (The Free Enterprise Forum supported), Bypass opponents proposed a series of integrated “solutions” would increase the existing roadway capacity.

My friend Jeff Werner of the Piedmont Environmental Council (PEC) even had a nifty PowerPoint Presentation regarding the  congestion

#6 Albemarle’s Executive Exodus x 2

Albemarle Executive Foley Finds Greener Pastures

Thomas FoleyWith rumors flying around Albemarle County (and Social Media) all day, a 4 pm Stafford County announcement made it official; County Executive Tom Foley is leaving Albemarle County to take up the same post in Stafford County.  In the announcement Stafford highlighted Foley’s service and temperament as key qualities they were looking for in their new administrator:

Albemarle is Losing Faith

leavingyourjobAs anticipated as the sun rising in the east, it is with absolutely no surprise that Albemarle County’s first Economic Development Director, Faith McClintic, will be leaving her position later this year.  In her short  18 month tenure, McClintic often found herself at odds with Planning Commissioners, some members of the public, this writer, and some elected officials.  In addition, she found herself without product as she said in August of this year:

“If a manufacturer calls interested in locating near a highway, we tell them, ‘We have nothing for you,’. Prospect businesses are looking to move within three to six months if they are not looking to build. We tell them, ‘We have no product ready to go today.’” – Faith McClintic, Albemarle County’s economic development director

#5 Albemarle and VDOT Create US29+Rio Lemonade

While the Free Enterprise Forum lost the battle against the US29/Rio Grade Separated Interchange (GSI), we have found Albemarle County (and Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT)) to be working exceedingly well together and significantly positively impacting the challenging business environment due to the roadway construction.

rio gsiIn the most recent Route 29 Solutions Project Delivery Advisory Panel meeting, former VDOT Commissioner and PDAP facilitator Philip Shucet indicated the next phase of the Rio GSI project, where the intersection will close for up to 103 days,  “Isn’t going to be a birthday party”.  This might be the understatement of the year.

#4 SOMEONE’s Shameful Sensationalism

Over the last dozen years, I have read literally hundreds of Albemarle County staff reports.  I tend to find the reports to be professional, concise, factually correct and devoid of generalizations or editorial commentary – until last week when I determined that SOMEONE  improperly and sensationally  used a tragedy to further an advocacy position in what was presented as an impartial staff analysis.

In an attempt to sensationalize the need for closing of Earlysville Road to truck traffic, SOMEONE has stooped so low as to cite a terrible teenage 2002 drunk driving accident as justification to overrule the technical analysis of professional traffic engineers.

#3 ‘Snob Zoning’ Crozet Master Plan in the Works?

Recently, C-ville magazine cover story posed the question, “Can Crozet maintain its small town charm snob-zones-640-for-web-194x300.jpgas its population increases?”

Perhaps the question should be “After millions of dollars of planning and infrastructure spending, should Crozet residents be allowed to stifle population and economic growth by hijacking the master planning process?”

We’ve recently learned such a plan is in the works.  And it is a bad idea….

The reality is the CCAC is opposed to density in the development area that is critical to achieve the philosophical goals of the Comprehensive Plan. The community vetted plan calls for densely populated development areas filled with amenities and services surrounded by less populated rural areas that are supportive of agriculture, forestry and open space.

In her seminal book “Snob Zoning”, Liza Prevost, exposed what happens when NIMBY zealots are able to change plans and regulations

#2 Fluvanna Land Use Fireworks

By. Bryan Rothamel, Field Officer

OBrien2014-photo-credit-Fluvanna-County_thumb.jpg

“I’m a little surprised board members are so happy to push this under the rug,” said Supervisor Tony O’Brien. . .

O’Brien said there were supervisors who should recuse themselves from the vote because they should know they aren’t compliant with the program.

Eager asked O’Brien to name who he thinks is not compliant as she has done everything to be compliant. He replied he never thought she wasn’t but questioned if Supervisor Don Weaver and chairperson Mike Sheridan (Columbia District) were compliant. He also thought Supervisor Mozell Booker might not be compliant but she was in a different arm of the program.

Sheridan said he asked a cooperative agent if he was in compliance and was told his practices were.

Fred Payne, county attorney, gave a legal opinion that supervisors do not have to recuse themselves just because they participate in the program.

O’Brien also suggested Mike Sheridan should recuse himself because Mel Sheridan is his brother.

Payne’s said Mike Sheridan had no need legally reason to recuse himself. He continued supervisors can always recuse themselves if they feel it is necessary but there was no legal reason to do so.

Weaver, who was quiet for the discussion, called for a vote which ended the discussion.

O’Brien said under his breath after the vote, “Embarrassing.”

#1 $52.5 Million Dollar Indecent Proposal – Albemarle Backs Off Threat to Wedding Industry

Last Tuesday evening, a rare joint meeting of the Albemarle County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors heard a great deal from both wedding venues and the vendors that support them.  Albemarle staff had prepared a proposed ordinance that, among other things, would limit the ability of wineries, breweries and distilleries to 24 events a year.  In the end the supervisors backed away from the most restrictive portion of the ‘indecent proposal’.

The testimony Tuesday was insightful and passionate.    Wedding Photographer Jen Fariello asked pointedly “Why are weddings being attacked?”  Wedding planner Adam Donovan-Groves [name correction 9:01 6/20 nw] told of one recent wedding whose local fiscal impact exceeded $250,000 musicians, gift packs, invitations, transportation, jewelry, photographer, etc.

Yes, 2016 has been a year of executive exits, speedy construction and threats of overregulation.  Through it all the Free Enterprise Forum continues to blog, tweet (@neilswilliamson) and Facebook about local issues of significant importance.

The year ahead is filled with promise: the promise of a national search for a new Albemarle County Executive, the promise of so called “Solutions” 29 being completed earlier than scheduled (looks like June), the promise of new form based code development in Charlottesville, as well as the promise of elections across all localities.

seats available2016 will also bring us the opportunity and privilege of attending and participating in  many more government meetings where important policy decisions are made and #SeatsAvailable.

Thank you for your support!

 

Happy New Year

Neil Williamson

Neil Williamson is the President of The Free Enterprise Forum, a privately funded public policy organization covering the City of Charlottesville as well as Albemarle, Greene, Fluvanna, Louisa and  Nelson County.

Service District SuperTax – A Tax By Any Other Name

By. Neil Williamson, President

A-rose-by

Increasingly a number of Central Virginia localities are finding that so called ‘Service Districts’ may provide a new revenue generation mechanism that is less politically repugnant than simple property taxes.  While both options are based on property value, 2017 may be the year of the Service District due to several interesting new taxation possibilities and complexities – please let me explain.

Albemarle County has been rather transparent in their pursuit of new service districts dating as far back to the discussion of a regional transit authority in the early 2000s.  The Free Enterprise Forum was a little surprised to find a suggestion of a service district buried deep in Greene County Administrator John Barkley’s December report:

Initiatives on the Horizon for 2017 – As the new year approaches, staff will continue working to improve the County’s financial reporting capabilities . . .  New initiatives will include addressing blight and the process and legalities associated with blight abatement, consideration of special assessment districts aimed at targeted infrastructure improvements, and conducting a full structural assessment of County facilities. Emphasis Added – nw

In their December 7th “Balanced Two Year Fiscal Plan” discussion the Albemarle Board of Supervisors were provided an illustration of the SuperTax Service Districts:

Eastern Ave – Phase 1 – Rt. 250 to Westhall, including Lickinghole Creek Bridge (Crozet)

This is a conceptual illustration of a specific project in Master Plan/CNA

Assumptions:

Project cost, $10.5 M (2022 $s for assumed year of construction–ends in 20 years)

Service District boundary = Crozet Development Area boundary

project funded with 60% state funds, 40% service district generated funding

Scenario 1 Crozet “Service District” provides 100% of Local Contribution – Annual cost to an increase of 2.8 cents on tax rate beginning in 2022

Scenario 2 County contributes $2M Crozet “Service District” provides remainder of Local Contribution – Annual cost equivalent to an increase of 1.6 cents on tax rate starting in 2022

Illustration: For a house assessed at $350,000, an increase of 2.8 cents on the tax rate would equate to an annual increase of $98.00; a 1.6 cent increase on the tax rate would equate to an annual increase of $56.00.

Logically this specific example raised a number of concerns.  Supervisor Ann Mallek mentioned her belief that this Eastern Connector had been promised to Crozet as a part of the concurrency of infrastructure that was the County’s responsibility under the Neighborhood Model.

This failure was identified as early as 2006 when the neighborhood model was still in it’s infancy.  In an October 4, 2006 staff report, when the Neighborhood Model was still in its infancy and the great recession had not yet hit) staff highlighted the hypocrisy of demanding developer infrastructure improvements while not holding up Albemarle’s end of the bargain:

The Comprehensive Plan has also established what public facilities are necessary at what locations to support development of the Development Areas and has anticipated developer provision of facilities along with VDOT and the County’s CIP.  However, the ability of developer and VDOT funding and the County’s CIP to adequately pay for the cost of public infrastructure to support the Development Areas as the priority areas for new development, public services and public infrastructure has become increasingly difficult.  Because this investment in infrastructure is critical to achieving the quality of life necessary to make Development Areas what is envisioned in the Neighborhood Model, the timing of infrastructure development associated with the rezoning of property within the Development Areas may need further consideration.

The Neighborhood Model has redefined how the Development Areas should develop to provide an active, vibrant urban place that will be perceived as a more desirable place to live than the Rural Areas.  It puts a greater reliance on public facilities and urban services in the Development Areas to achieve the urban form. It continues to anticipate developer provision of facilities along with VDOT and the County’s CIP providing a greater emphasis on concurrency with development.  It emphasizes Master Planning of areas within the Development Areas to best define how the Neighborhood Model can be achieved in these areas. . .

. . .Without the infrastructure needed to address the impact of the up-zoned property, concerns regarding the quality of life in the Development Areas will need to be considered.

Emphasis added-nw

Albemarle staff also presented the concept of using the Service District Supertax to fund sidewalks in the urban areas, small area planning, as well as city/county cooperative ventures.

Interestingly, the staff did not mention one VERY attractive part of Service District SuperTax funding – Local government gets all the money – unlike a tax increase where by Board policy Albemarle splits increased revenue 60%/40% with the schools this would be all local government money.  To get the same level of funding for capital projects the tax increase would need to be 60% higher than the Service District SuperTax.

While we appreciate and understand the demands placed on localities to fund the needed infrastructure, the Free Enterprise Forum believes the Service District SuperTax is a flawed model that may create a balkanization of any locality utilizing it.  Further we have significant issues with an existing Board of Supervisors sitting in 2016 approving a Service District SuperTax that does not go into effect until 2022.  While this may be legal, it does not seem right.

Concurrent funding of infrastructure to support locality’s comprehensive plan is the locality responsibility.  If there is a problem with the Board policy of sharing new revenue with the schools, change that policy rather than creating a new Service District SuperTax to work your way around it.

Respectfully Submitted,

Neil Williamson, President

——————————————–

Neil Williamson is the President of The Free Enterprise Forum, a public policy organization covering the City of Charlottesville as well as Albemarle, Greene, Fluvanna, Louisa  and Nelson County.  For more information visit the website www.freeenterpriseforum.org

Photo Credit: www.planetofquotes.com

An Albemarle Planning Christmas

First presented to the Albemarle County Planning Commission on December 13, 2016

By. Neil Williamson, President, Free Enterprise Forum

Twas two weeks before Christmas and all through Albemarle County

Folks were shopping and buying their family holiday bounty

The neighborhood meetings were held, public hearings advertised with care

In hopes that applicant’s final approvals might soon be theirs.

 

With Tubbs in his head seat and me off and tweeting

The regulars were in position for a long Planning Commission meeting

When up in the foyer there arose such a clatter

Sharon phoned maintenance to get to the bottom of the matter.

 

Away to the back doors, I flew up the row

With Sean, Jeff, and Morgan behind me, albeit quite slow

As I reached the ACOB back doors, of course located in front

I mumbled about relegated parking and pushed them open with a grunt

 

Florescent lights spilling out to the front staircase mountain

Gave brightness to the beautiful but empty decorative fountain

When what to my skeptical eyes should appear

but a BMW Mini and eight tiny reindeer

 

With a tall bearded driver, so sly and so tame

I knew in a moment it must be old Wayne

More rapid than zoning violations his courses they came

And he whistled and shouted, and called them by name

“Now Graham, now Gast-Bray, now Fritz and Newberry!

On Echols! On Weaver! On Benish and Sherry!

To the top of the properly stepped retaining wall!

Now dash away dash away dash away all!’

 

As the mud on a critical but managed slope after a summer rain flows,

when they meet with an obstacle from the ground that grows

So up to the green roof of the ACOB the coursers they flew,

With a sleigh, full of applications and Wayne Cilimberg too.

 

And then in a twinkling, I heard tapping noise somewhat fleeting

I thought Kilroy was updating citizens with her tweeting

As I gathered myself and turned to speak with the guys

The former Planning Director jumped off the elevator with surprise

 

He was dressed in a Hawaiian shirt and well pressed slacks

And his clothes smelled of suntan oil and perhaps the dog track

A bundle of approvals, he had slung on his back

He looked like a lost Shenandoah hiker just opening his pack

 

His eyes — how they twinkled, not application weary

His mind now so rested, his face rather cheeryskinny santa

He had a slight build but fit from the gym;

Tanned rested and ready, retired but slim.

Retirement clearly suited this jolly tall elf,

And I laughed when I saw him in spite of myself;

 

A wink of his eye and his now graying mane

Soon gave me to know I need not fear from Wayne.

He spoke not a word but had an aggressive comprehensive plan

Stamping applications “approved”, saying “yes, yes you can”

And pressing the button with his red sharpie stained hand

The elevator swept him away to the upper floors of ACOB land.

 

He sprang to top of the building on McIntyre

And away he flew like his pants were on fire

He shouted above the din of his fine steed

“Approve applications, economic development we need.”

I heard him exclaim as ere he drove out of sight

“Merry Christmas to all — Retirement is All right!”

———————————————————————

Neil Williamson is the President of The Free Enterprise Forum, a public policy organization covering the City of Charlottesville as well as Albemarle, Greene, Fluvanna, Louisa  and Nelson County.  For more information visit the website www.freeenterpriseforum.org

Photo Credits: Gifs.cc

Albemarle Backdoor Downzoning Proposed

By. Neil Williamson, President

Imagine you woke up one morning and you learned, through no fault of your own, your property was worth 50% less than when you went to bed the night before.

What if you also found housing was less available, less diverse and more expensive?

And what if your neighbors were behind the change?

All of this is possible under a resolution under consideration (but not yet endorsed) by Albemarle County’s Crozet Community Advisory Committee (CCAC).

Thee fundamental question at hand is seeking to redefine the land use calculation from gross density to net density.

In an oversimplification, this moving of the goalposts reduces the density possible on most parcels.

The New Designs for Growth Guidebook correctly identifies the impact of the different planning paradigms:

Density Calculations
The method communities use to calculate density can dramatically impact development patterns.  For instance, while densely arranged homes on one portion of a large parcel would have the same gross density as the same number of homes spread out evenly over the parcel, the two developments have substantially different net densities.  Hence lot size and building arrangement can result in very different residential densities.

When revising ordinances, local jurisdictions should take into consideration the implications inherent with the different methods of calculating density.  Net density produces a more visually recognizable density for the developed portion of the site, while gross density allows for more flexibility in developing sites (e.g., cluster developments, PUDs) as well as projects evaluated in the context of average density of adjacent developments (i.e., a development fitting within a density continuum).

Gross density = Total residential units / total development land area
Net density = Total residential units / total residential land area (excludes roads, open spaces, and other uses)

While accurate, the definition above fails to address the clear concern of property owners the numerator in the calculation. Currently under the gross density concept if you have 10 acres in R-2 zoning in the development areas, you have the by right ability to build 20 homes on the 10 acres.  Under net density, the applicant must discount any land deemed “unbuildable by regulation”.

What would be included as “unbuildable by regulation”?  The City of St. Helena in Oregon has the following considerations:

    • All sensitive land areas:
    • Land within the 100-year floodplain;
    • Land or slopes exceeding 25 percent;
    • Drainageways;
    • Wetlands;
    • Fish and wildlife habitats;
    • Archaeological sites;
    • Federal or state protected areas for listed threatened or endangered species; and
    • Designated open space and open space-design review areas;
    • All land dedicated to the public for park purposes;
      • All land dedicated for public right-of-way:
      • Single-dwelling units: allocate 20 percent of gross acres for public facilities; and
      • Multiple-dwelling units: allocate 15 percent of gross acres for public facilities;
    • All land proposed for private streets;

Considering the topography of the Piedmont, one can easily see the aforementioned 10 acres losing significant portion of its by right density.

But the demand for housing will not go away.

Albemarle County’s Comprehensive Plan highlights the anticipated need for new units:

As seen in the residential Capacity Analysis discussed in the Development Areas Chapter, projections suggest that by the year 2030, approximately 15,000 additional dwelling units will be needed to accommodate the County’s future population. According to the Development Area Master Plans, the Development Areas can accommodate a range of approximately 13,800 to 29,000 new dwelling units.

Under current zoning, approximately 13,400 to 19,900 new dwelling units can be built.

If Crozet is able to move the goal posts by changing the density calculation, this would result in a less dense community, more expensive delivery of government services and a loss of property value to development area land owners.

Further as fewer homes will be able to be constructed in each development the cost of the infrastructure required for those homes would be spread across fewer units increasing cost to the end user.

As development area lots become more expensive, rural area development will become more economically attractive encouraging sprawl.  When coupled with the dearth of available new units to meet the forecast demand, cost of all housing (rural and development areas) will increase.

But it will reduce the population density allowed in Crozet – could this be the overarching goal?

Regardless of cost?

As usual more questions than answers, stay tuned.

Respectfully Submitted,

Neil Williamson, President


Neil Williamson is president of the Free Enterprise Forum, a privately funded non-profit public policy organization focused on local governments in Central Virginia. For more information visit www.freeenterpriseforum.org.

Albemarle Executive Foley Finds Greener Pastures

By. Neil Williamson, President

Thomas FoleyWith rumors flying around Albemarle County (and Social Media) all day, a 4 pm Stafford County announcement made it official; County Executive Tom Foley is leaving Albemarle County to take up the same post in Stafford County.  In the announcement Stafford highlighted Foley’s service and temperament as key qualities they were looking for in their new administrator:

Stafford County proudly announces the appointment of Thomas C. Foley to the position of County Administrator. Thomas Foley comes to Stafford from Albemarle County where he has served as County Executive. He will take over the reins from Interim County Administrator C. Douglas Barnes on February 1, 2017.

“Stafford County is moving in a fantastic direction on so many fronts – strong economic development, more diverse and innovative educational opportunities, enhanced and better-equipped public safety, forward-thinking improvements to our infrastructure, combining school and government functions to be more efficient and fully utilizing the awesome potential of our employees,” said Chairman of the Board of Supervisors Bob Thomas, George Washington District. “We think Tom Foley is the perfect fit for moving forward with the Board’s vision during this very dynamic time in Stafford County. We are confident that his budgeting acumen, his emphasis on developing employees and his ability to implement strategic plans are strengths that will fully optimize Stafford’s full potential.”

According to the Albemarle County Website:

Thomas C. Foley (Tom) received a Business Administration degree from Marshall University in 1985 and his Masters in Public Administration in 1993 from Virginia Commonwealth University. Tom began his local government career with the Virginia Association of Counties and, in May of 1991, he was named Cumberland County’s first Chief Administrative Officer. In 1994, he was appointed the County Administrator of Caroline County. From 1999 through the end of 2010, Tom served as the Assistant County Executive for Albemarle County and, in January 2011, he was appointed County Executive by the Board of Supervisors.

Tom is a graduate of Virginia Tech’s Institute for Economic Development (1993) and the Certified Planning Commissioners’ Program also from Virginia Tech (1992). In addition to membership in ICMA, he is a member of the Virginia Local Government Manager’s Association (VLGMA).

Tom serves on the Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority, the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority, the Charlottesville/Albemarle Airport Authority, the Central Virginia Partnership for Economic Development, and the Planning and Coordination Council (in conjunction with Charlottesville and University of Virginia Officials).

Where does Foley’s departure leave Albemarle?

Many of the ongoing projects have been lead by Foley but he has a very competent staff to try and keep this process moving forward.

Unfortunately, the Free Enterprise Forum believes the high level strategic work with the Board of Supervisors will grind slowly to a halt and perhaps most importantly, the loss of the man who said “It’s a new day in Albemarle” related to economic development puts the county’s commitment to economic vitality into question.  In addition, Albemarle’s high number of high level executive departures is a cause for concern.

Further, the search for a new County Executive will demand a great deal of Supervisors time and will likely postpone significant advancement of their strategic goals. To be clear, while we are sorry to see Tom leave our community, we have worked with him on a number of projects and found him to be a most agile thinker and strategist, we wish him the best in his future endeavors.

Respectfully Submitted

Neil Williamson, President

Photo Credit Albemarle County

$2 Million of Hydraulic Planning Funds Accelerated – Now What?

By. Neil Williamson, President

In late September, the Charlottesville Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization (CA-MPO) unanimously approved a resolution that read much like a list to the Santa Claus of transportation planning:

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Charlottesville-Albemarle MPO Policy Board recommends to the Commonwealth Transportation Board, the Virginia Secretary of Transportation, the City of Charlottesville, Albemarle County and the Charlottesville Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization to immediately initiate the process for planning the transportation improvements of the Hydraulic and Route 29 intersection and nearby roadways as identified in the MPO’s Long Range Transportation Plan (2040 LRTP) and to enact and implement the recommendations in coordination with comprehensive land use planning including but not limited to the following:

  1. Continue the facilitated collaborative panel process to determine a potential range of reasonable options for reducing congestion and improving mobility in the general area of the Hydraulic-US 29 intersection, including the option of doing nothing.
  2. Request the CTB to combine Hillsdale South and Hydraulic Intersection planning and preliminary engineering budgets into one consolidated planning and preliminary engineering budget.
  3. Request the CTB to amend the Six Year Improvement Plan (SYIP) to advance funding for small area planning and panel discussions to begin in FY17.
  4. Request the Secretary of Transportation to authorize the MPO to lead and use transportation financial resources to conduct a small area planning process for the Hydraulic Intersection general area of the City and County, such small area planning to include transparent citizen, business and community engagement.
  5. Request the Secretary of Transportation to begin the transportation planning process so that adequate information will be available to apply for Smart Scale funding by September, 2018 should a project or projects move forward from the collaborative planning process.  Emphasis added- NW

Christmas may have come early for the CA-MPO.  On November 3rd, Virginia’s Secretary of Transportation Aubrey Layne, Charlottesville and Albemarle County have received “accelerated” funds for the Hydraulic Road Area Study. In his letter to CA-MPO Executive Director Chip Boyles, Layne wrote:

We look forward to the continued progress and movement, specifically with the Hydraulic Road Area Study, in order to keep Virginia moving through the Charlottesville Area…By leveraging funds between the two current projects (Hydraulic Road and Hillsdale Drive South), we will be able to commit funding in the amount of $1,000,000 for the study in this current fiscal year (FY 2017) with an additional $1,000,000 available on July 1, 2017.

The Free Enterprise Forum sincerely appreciates the forward thinking of the CA-MPO working backwards from the time of the next round of competitive funding; we also have a great deal of angst about the methodology that might or might not be used in creating this “transparent process”.   We also understand the a total of $10 million dollars for “preliminary engineering” was included as part of the approved Route 29 Solutions package.

Back in May of 2014, we wrote about Playing Dominos with a the series of interchanges resulting in the US 29 Expressway.  We have many of the same concerns we raised in that post:

No one believes that the interchange at Rio is the end, it is like putting in a 4 inch pipe on a 2 inch line, while the water will move freely on the larger connector it really does little good for the overall velocity of the water until you expand the whole line.

It is strategically important to recognize the proposed Shucet Solution is being offered as an all or nothing opportunity with a time deadline.  He (and the McAuliffe Administration) knows that is if  Domino #1 falls and Domino #2 [Hydraulic] starts to tilt – the eventual expressway will be well on its way to completion.

Once these first two dominos fall, we will start to see the calls for access management and more “grade separated intersections”.  The “depressed express lanes” will start at the Wal-Mart at Hilton Heights Road and will logically terminate with a set of flyover exit ramps to 250.

Currently the State has found the proper leverage points to “facilitate” a solution on the Charlottesville area.  The timing, strategy and tactics they have used have been nothing short of amazing.  They held an advisory panel of opinion leaders without a single vote or test for consensus, they truncated the timing of the process to elude the July 1 deadline of HB #2 that requires project prioritization and they are poised to get Charlottesville to give up almost two decades of opposition to the highly disruptive Hydraulic/US29 Interchange. 

Chess Master Bobby Fisher once said, “Tactics flow from a superior position”. Even when it is not in the best interest of the community, one must recognize the excellent gamesmanship exhibited by both Shucet and Virginia Transportation Secretary Aubrey Layne.

Well played, gentlemen, well played indeed.

We sense gamesmanship is again at work in this acceleration process.  With the new “accelerated” funding will the CA-MPO reach out to other major users of US 29 for the panel discussions?  Considering three corners of the Hydraulic intersection are n the City of Charlottesville and one is in Albemarle County, who will drive the small area planning?  How will the City and County Planning Commissions be engaged?  Or will they?    Considering the careful wording of the CA-MPO resolution is there any community or political support for another grade separated interchange on US 29?

As usual we have more questions than answers.

Respectfully submitted,

Neil Williamson


Neil Williamson is president of the Free Enterprise Forum, a privately funded non-profit public policy organization focused on local governments in Central Virginia. For more information visit www.freeenterpriseforum.org.

 

Is The Jury Still Out on Albemarle Courts Relocation?

By. Neil Williamson, President

Tonight (10/24) the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will take “public input” regarding the albemarle-courthousepossible relocation of their courts system.  Of the five options on the table, all but one keeps the courts in the City of Charlottesville. While the Free Enterprise Forum would like to have a favored option, we do not believe the case has been made for any option — considering how far along the process is, we are astonished at the basic questions that remain unanswered.

To review here are the five options:

OPTION 1: DOWNTOWN/LEVY EXPANSION
OPTION 2: RELOCATE COUNTY & CITY GENERAL DISTRICT COURTS TO COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING MCINTIRE

OPTION 3: RELOCATE COUNTY GENERAL DISTRICT COURTS TO COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING MCINTIRE

OPTION 4: RELOCATE COUNTY GENERAL DISTRICT COURTS & CIRCUIT COURTS TO COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING MCINTIRE

OPTION 5: RELOCATE COUNTY GENERAL DISTRICT & CIRCUIT COURTS TO COUNTY SITE

As we examine the decision matrix provided by the county, we have many more questions than answers.

Here are our top ten inquiries:

  1. Has the city offered any economic incentives to support any of the City based options? (see last week’s blog post)
  2. Why does option 1 (stay downtown) cost $12,500,000 more than building in option 5?
  3. Why does it cost $18,000,000 to put the General District Court at the County office building when it appears that most of the infrastructure is already there?
  4. If you build a new county admin facility, where will it be located and, how much does it cost?  Where is that cost shown?
  5. Do options 2-5 factor in the lost property tax revenue for whatever parcel is acquired?
  6. The matrix seems to indicate that options 2-5 strongly support the County’s strategic redevelopment/urban place making priorities.   Doesn’t that really depend on where the County offices are built and how?  It could eat up a bunch of property in the urban area and create little long term value.
  7. Will option 5 allow a mix of uses on their site?  What of creating affordable housing over top of the new county offices?
  8. It seems that you are assuming any new construction by the County in the County has high economic development value.  Why?  What assumptions have been made to draw that conclusion?
  9. Is taking urban county property off the tax rolls good for economic development? Will the development area be expanded to replace this lost land?
  10. Why is the construction risk higher for option 1 than any of the other options?

The public input offered can only be as good as the information provided to them to base that input.  We forwarded these questions to Albemarle County early last week and they indicated they hoped to have answers in their presentation tonight. If that is the case, the public will have limited time to process the information before the public input session closes.

Regardless, these questions need answers before anyone should make a decision on the future location of the court.

The jury is not “still out” — the full argument has yet to be presented.

Respectfully Submitted,

Neil Williamson, President

_____________

Neil Williamson is the President of The Free Enterprise Forum, a public policy organization covering the City of Charlottesville as well as Albemarle, Greene, Fluvanna, Louisa  and Nelson County.  For more information visit the website http://www.freeenterpriseforum.org

Photo Credits: Albemarle County

Is Charlottesville the $17.86 Million Court Jester?

By. Neil Williamson, President

Imagine you are a mayor or a City Manager, if a major employer and economic driver in your city was poised to leave, how would you respond?

Perhaps its just me, but I would likely fight like heck to keep them in the city.  It is much easier to retain a major employer than to attract one.

But what if the employer is actually an arm of a neighboring government, should that matter?

What if that neighboring government annually gives your city millions in revenue sharing dollars, does that enter into the equation?

As most readers know, Albemarle County is evaluating five options for the needed expansion of their courts system.  The Free Enterprise Forum is currently reviewing the cost analysis provided by Albemarle and will weigh in on Monday (10/24) prior to the public input meeting regarding our thoughts on the various options.

Only one, the most expensive, of the five options keeps the courts in their current position in Charlottesville’s Court Square.Image result for Court Jester

This summer, the Charlottesville Regional Chamber of Commerce issued a report: An Economic Assessment of the Current Unified Court Square.  The report found $34 million in salaries could be tied to the courts and the related legal enterprises.  Further the report highlighted $1.6 million in employee meals spending and another $3 million in “other court attendee spending” . Accepted at face value, the combined courts complex has in excess of $38 million dollars in economic impact.

According to the Chamber report:

    • 45.9% of all 2015 General District Court hearings are Albemarle cases
    • 43% of Juvenile and Domestic Relation cases are Albemarle cases
    • 73.9% of the Depositions are Albemarle cases.

Allow me a little cocktail napkin math – A conservative estimate of the impact of Albemarle pulling both courts out of Court Square would be 47% of the case load.  Cocktail napkin math (not a true arithmetic discipline) projects the annual economic impact of moving both courts to be up to $17.86 million dollars (47% of $38 million).

With almost $18 Million dollars on the table, one has to ask – Where is the City of Charlottesville?

Where is the economic development arm that has supported businesses relocating to the city in the past?

Considering the documents released by Albemarle yesterday indicate keeping the courts in court square is the most expensive option ($42.4 million), shouldn’t the city make any offers NOW before the Board of Supervisors hears from the public and chooses to literally “leave town”?

Perhaps Charlottesville is already having such discussions with Albemarle – if so, the public should know.

If Albemarle decides to bring $17.86 million of ‘County’ economic activity back to Albemarle, Charlottesville may end up looking as wise as the Court Jester this Halloween.

Stay tuned.

Respectfully Submitted,

Neil Williamson, President

———————————————-

Neil Williamson is the President of The Free Enterprise Forum, a public policy organization covering the City of Charlottesville as well as Albemarle, Greene, Fluvanna, Louisa  and Nelson County.  For more information visit the website www.freeenterpriseforum.org

Photo Credits: dinardaily.net