Tag Archives: mission creep

Proposed Politically Proactive Agenda of Albemarle’s Community Advisory Committees


By. Neil Williamson, PresidentImage result for warner wolf let's go to the videotape

I grew up watching television sports anchor Warner Wolf’s trademark introduction to each evening’s highlights, “Let’s Go To The Videotape”.

I anticipate Wolf would be most appreciative of The Crozet Gazette recording (digitally) the entirety of last week’s Crozet Community Advisory Committee (CCAC) meeting.

But I get ahead of myself.  Please let me explain. 

The Free Enterprise Forum has been very critical of Albemarle County’s Community Advisory Committees.  Here are just a few of our posts:

Most of the people serving on these unelected development area committees are sincere residents working to make their community a better place by commenting on development proposals, evaluating traffic reduction measures and discussing community infrastructure investments.  But there are some that seem to believe these CACs, as they are known “represent the majority of the development area residents” and should be empowered to set the political agenda.

At the very end of last week’s CCAC meeting,  Former Planning Commissioner Tom Loach clearly outlined his desire for the group to work with the other CACs to develop a Proactive CAC Action Agenda:

Loach said:

Why we should have a dialog with the other CACs [is] because I don’t think their problems are any different than ours … Here every year we have a meeting that the county calls and its all the CACs together…. but nothing gets done, there is no result in it….

…What I would like to see us do is work with the other CACs and start to come up with an agenda, an action agenda, that we can use for all of the CACs for the next year so that when we do that we’re not talking as individual CACs we’re talking essentially as the majority of the residents of the growth areas … I’d rather be proactive than reactive.

…What I am looking for are the global [themes between CACs] that we can focus on as an agenda item to work with the Board [of Supervisors] Emphasis Added-NW

Don’t believe me, thanks to the Crozet Gazette we can [as Warner Wolf would say]  go to the videotape:  https://t.co/PZFK6W60bv

Now to be fair, Loach was seeking to have a larger discussion about this concept at the next CCAC meeting and the last minute proposal was greeted by CCAC members gathering their papers. The topic will be added to the group’s October agenda.

The Free Enterprise Forum has learned this is not the first time this issue has come up.  It was apparently discussed at the CAC Chairs/Vice Chairs meeting earlier this year.  The topic is listed as a 10 minute discussion item on tomorrow night’s Places 29 Rio CAC agenda.

We hope each CAC will push back on the Loach Proactive CAC Action Agenda concept, perhaps by citing Albemarle County’s specific charge of the CAC:


Based on the diverse membership of the CCAC and the general level headedness of the other CACs, I do not think the Loach Proactive CAC Action Agenda will see the light of day.

We hope not; such is the work of elected officials who are answerable to all the voters both in and outside of the development areas.

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.networthpost.com


Albemarle Mission Creeping Planning Commission


By. Neil Williamson, President

After a January 2018 determination found that 1/3 of Albemarle’s Entrance Corridors are illegal, the Board of Supervisors has yet to act on a resolution of intent to fix this issue.

In this vacuum, Albemarle County’s Planning Commission decided they don’t need no stinking Architectural Review Board – they can mission creep far beyond their state mandated advisory role and institute architectural demands on projects regardless of their location.

Please let me explain.

First it is important to note, the Free Enterprise Forum does not take positions on specific projects.  The examples below are used to show a broken process, we do not have an opinion regarding the applications’ individual merit.

Example #1

During the Architectural Review Board review of a project (SP-2017-00016) in the Scottsville District on Avon Street Extended, it was determined that Avon Street Extended is not an arterial roadway (a requirement for an Entrance Corridor designation).  The applicant went through the initial review without this knowledge and after the determination was made, the planning commission was briefed.  Based on the applicant’s testimony at the Planning Commission, it was clear they were never told that they were not under the ARB regulations.  Only late in the public hearing did the Deputy County Attorney mention that the applicant would not need to go back to the ARB for a final review.

Instead, the mission creeping Planning Commission seeking to achieve ARB-type control created a new class of conditions to codify the architecture as a part of a special use permit for a body shop.

b. Additional fenestration or architectural features shall be added along the “02 Left Elevation (South)” façade to provide a pedestrian orientation to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning or his/her designee. Priority should be given to providing additional fenestration or a combination of wall plantings, architectural features and fenestration along this particular elevation. [emphasis in original – nw]

Conditions in a Special Use Permit generally mitigate negative impacts on adjoining property owners, taking this to mean architectural elements is a LARGE LEAP beyond normal review.

Example #2

The following week, the Planning Commission considered a Special Use Permit application  for a new church on Rio Road East (SP201700010).  Rio Road East has never been established as an entrance corridor; it is mentioned as a corridor for possible entrance corridor consideration in the Comprehensive Plan (Page 5.20).

Strategy 8f: Consider additional EC designations as appropriate, or as road classifications change, for roads such as the John Warner Parkway, Route 614 (Sugar Hollow Road), Route 692/712 (Plank Road), and Route 810 (Brown’s Gap Turnpike).

It is important to note there has been no resolution of intent or any other forward motion on making the John Warner Parkway an Entrance Corridor beyond the notation above in the 2015 guiding planning document.

That mere mention is enough for this activist Planning Commission to mission creep into mandating architectural features as a function of the Special Use Permit process.  In this case now they have precedent, based on the SUP they railroaded the week before (Example #1).  Honestly, the applicant never knew what hit him.

The Free Enterprise Forum is very concerned that the mission creeping Planning Commission is unchecked in its power grab beyond state code.  As an advisory body, nothing becomes final until accepted by the Board of Supervisors.

When the Board of Supervisors considers these applications later this year, will any Supervisor (or County Counsel) raise the red flag regarding these architectural demands absent a significant community benefit OR a strong legal nexus?

I know which way I am betting.

Stay Tuned,


Neil Williamson, President

Photo Credit: Bartblog.bartcop.com

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 PC Irresponsible Fantasy Island Fiscal Follies Could Equal 37.5% Tax Increase

By. Neil Williamson, President

The Albemarle County Planning Commission (PC) has reached a new high in mission creep as in their January 26th meeting they chose to not only ignore a 2014 change in Virginia state law, they also decided to ignore a clearly worded memo of direction from the Board of Supervisors regarding cash proffer calculation.

Fantasy Island 2Along the way, they expanded their directive and in an effort to extract more cash proffers from new home buyers, they started the ball rolling on a “Fantasy Island” Capital Improvement Program (CIP) that could, if ever implemented,  increase annual CIP spending by $144.3 Million and increase property taxes by 37.5% ($750+ on a $250,000 home).

Please let me explain.

The Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee (FIAC) produced a report in September 2015 indicating the need to dramatically reduce the maximum cash proffer amount permitted to bring Albemarle County in line with the 2014 change in State Code.  The 2014 law requires the calculation be based on only CIP projects that increase capacity (rather than maintenance).

FIAC’s recommendation followed the 2014 state law change:

2) Amend the maximum per unit cash proffer amounts to:
o SFD – $4,918 (2014 value was $20,987)
o SFA/TH – $3,845 (2014 value was $14,271)
o MF – $5,262 (2014 value was $14,871)

The September 3, 2014 memo from the Board of Supervisors directing the PC and FIAC to review the Cash Proffer Calculation was very clear:

Specifically the Board requests that the Committee:
1) Analyze possible credits for:
-Development in targeted areas. Targeted areas are those areas shown as Priority Areas identified in each Master Plan Area.
-Mixed use developments.
-Development supportive of growth management        strategies of the Comprehensive Plan.
2) Provide recommendations on changes to existing credits in the policy, including the credit that may be provided for by-right units, now available by policy only in limited circumstances (Policy § C(6)(c)).
3) Update the County’s maximum per unit cash proffer amount by dwelling unit type.
4) Provide this advice and recommendation at the earliest possible date.

Several members of the FIAC complained to the Planning Commission that the proffer number was too low due to the change in State law and Albemarle’s recent “maintenance only” CIP.  Rather than accepting the report and direction from a committee that met 18 times over the last year and half, the Planning Commission discussion focused the committee’s disgruntled members and on their own uncomfortableness with the resultant proffer numbers required by state law.

PC Members wanted staff to detail all the capital projects required to achieve the vision of the newly approved comprehensive plan.  It was their thought that this would provide a better context than what the state law provided.

The Free Enterprise Forum has been critical of the Planning Commission’s involvement in these fiscal discussions.  Part of that criticism is based on the limited scope of the commission and the reality that Planning Commissioners do not fully understand the capital spending crisis Albemarle County is already in.

Cash proffers provide less than 3.5% of the annual revenue for capital spending.  The lion’s share comes from property taxes.

With the economic downturn, recent Boards of Supervisors chose not to increase taxes to keep up with new infrastructure demands but rather to kick such funding down the road and only fund maintaining existing infrastructure.

Albemarle’s FY2016 Budget Message summed it up succinctly:

As most recently reviewed, the CIP continues to focus on meeting mandates, maintaining existing infrastructure, and investing in those projects that allow the County to continue core and necessary services without substantial increases in operational costs. … As most recently reviewed, $152.1 million or 50% of the requested CIP projects were unable to be funded with current resources.

So what does that mean the Planning Commission is contemplating?

Based on our review of the Comprehensive Plan and Albemarle’s own assessment that they can’t fund half of the CIP projects already on the books now – we conservatively estimate the Planning Commission Fiscal Follies would likely triple the CIP need.

fantasy island 3Therefore, to fully fund the Planning Commission’s “Fantasy Island” CIP could be $.40+ (currently ~$.10) on the tax rate.  Based on Albemarle’s tax calculator – on a $250,000 home that equates to a $750 [37.5%] increase in local property taxes.

But the Planning Commission really is not in a place to understand this fiscal reality.  As unelected appointees, they do not have to face the voters with such fiscal follies.

The Free Enterprise Forum calls on the Planning Commission to cease wasting limited staff resources on this fanciful mission creep into County fiscal matters.  We believe they should vote (either way) on the September 2015 FIAC recommendation and send their recommendation to the Board of Supervisors who do answer to the voters.

We believe a 37.5% “Fantasy Island” CIP property tax increase would generate significant  discussion among the Board and voters.

Respectfully Submitted,

Neil Williamson

Neil Williamson December 2 2015 Albemarle BOS meeting Photo Credit Charlottesville TomorrowNeil 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 Credits:   Charlottesville Tomorrow, ABC Television

Albemarle Knows Best – Comprehensive Plan Mission Creep

By.  Neil Williamson, President

Through the use of zoning, architectural design guidelines, regulations and overlay districts, local governments already control the size, appearance and type of activity conducted on any given parcel, now in Albemarle they want government to dictate when the market is ready for a permitted activity (see first bullet below).

Please let me explain.

One of the primary philosophical issues with government comprehensive planning is government comprehensive planning.  While state code mandates that all localities have such plans and they be updated every five years, the level of detail of these plans differs widely.

Albemarle County has been engaged in this comprehensive plan update for well over two years.  Late on Wednesday evening, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing on the proposed Comprehensive Plan.  After the public hearing, they plan to hold future work sessions, where public comment may or may not be permitted prior to adoption of the plan.    We strongly encourage the Board to accept public comment prior to each of their work sessions.

The Free Enterprise Forum has been engaged in this effort since the beginning and continues to find significant issues.   Here are just a few:

  • In what can only be described as government overreach, page 7.34 outlines that Albemarle should only approve a permitted land use “when a significant unmet need can be established for this type of use”.  This concept is outlandish and fundamentally flawed.  While government can, and should, consider the impacts of uses on the larger community, the business decision of need or viability should be placed squarely with the landowner who is taking the risk.
  • In addition to being a planner employment act (calling for significant increase in planning staff), the comprehensive plan regularly fails to recognize property rights and the positive stewardship of private property owners.
  • Last year at the Planning Commission, we led the fight with Monticello and successfully got the “veiwshed” preservation regulations removed from the document.  Surprisingly despite that very public victory, the plan still calls for enabling legislation for new overlay powers designed for “scenic protection and tourist enhancement”.
  • In the mid 200s, the community was engaged in a rancorous debate over property rights and mountaintop “protection” ordinance.  The ordinance effort failed yet is mentioned in the 2014 Comprehensive Plan no less than four times.
  • The transportation chapter cites a reduction in Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) as a goal.  This is nonsense.  The goal should be efficient and effective transport not a multimodal anti-mobility metric.  Conceptually, this misguided goal would be met if no one ever went anywhere.
  • The number one objective in the Economic Development chapter [the shortest chapter in the plan] is to “Ensure that economic development goals are supportive of the County’s Growth Management Policy and consistent with other Comprehensive Plan goals”.  This is a misplaced priority.  Objective 1 should be focused on making sure there is work for those who want to work.
  • Strategy 1d in the Economic Development chapter is “Encourage all businesses to adopt environmentally sustainable business practices”.  Such a strategy may be appropriate in another chapter but I am at a loss to understand how this will help economic development.  It seems like a “feel good” tack on that has no nexus to economic vitality.

With much of the community now focused on the Western Bypass public hearing next week, the Free Enterprise Forum anticipates few speakers on this critical five year philosophical planning document.  Absent significant public outcry, the Supervisors will choose not to review the plan chapter by chapter but to enact it with little or no changes.

Considering the perceived import of this plan if the BOS fails to fully vet the document, that’s planning to fail.

Respectfully Submitted,

Neil Williamson, President

clip_image0024.pngNeil Williamson is the President of the Free Enterprise Forum, a local government public policy organization located in Charlottesville.  www.freeenterpriseforum.org

Is Albemarle Asking the “Right” Questions?

By. Neil Williamson, President

For the second time in as many months, the Frpolice trainingee Enterprise Forum witnesses incredible mission creep at the Albemarle County Office Building.

Last month, we wrote a post about the Albemarle Architectural Review Board seeking to answer questions better suited to the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT)

Last night (4/3), the Albemarle County Planning Commission was considering whether a proposed Police shooting range on the old Keene landfill property (closed in 1991)  was compatible with the County’s Comprehensive Plan.

It is important to note that the Free Enterprise Forum has no position on this, or any other application.  We do find it incredibly enlightening whenever Albemarle County is the applicant.

In a perfect world, the Planning Commission would limit its questions to those areas where it has legislative authority.  Other questions may be “interesting” but applicants should not feel compelled to answer them.  The Free Enterprise Forum has spoken out about this mission creep in several recent meetings.

During the questioning of the applicant several commissioners raised the issue of safety, noise, hours of operation, caliber of weapon (as it impacts noise) as well as intensity of facility use in the discussion with the applicant.  All of these questions clearly are tied to the land use and the neighborhood impacts and are appropriate.

Three of the commissioners also asked the applicant (the County) questions that were way outside the land use determination in front of them:

  • Did Albemarle County consider other properties for this facility?
  • How wide was the search?
  • Were non county owned parcels considered?
  • How much will this facility cost?
  • How short is the department from its full staffing of officers?
  • Has the County considered other options for this stated police training need?

When I raised the question of appropriateness of cost questions to a land use decision during the public hearing, the ex-officio (non voting) commissioner responded “it’s because it’s tax dollars”

Rather than publicly argue this point in what is designed to be a one way conversation, I replied that I understood.

What I understood is that this commissioner (and some of her associates) did not understand their charge.

In the end the issue passed 5-2 (Smith and Dotson opposed).  As stated above, the Free Enterprise Forum has no opinion on this application but we believe this case is illustrative of a flawed Albemarle “inquisition” process.

The question before the Planning Commission was simply is this land use compatible with the comprehensive plan.  The idea that it is a vital function of public safety is important but not critical to the decision.  It could be argued if a police shooting range is found to be compatible with the Comprehensive Plan clearly a private range in the same location with the same impacts and should result in the same decision.

sandbox - lowesIf any Planning Commissioner want to “protect the taxpayer” from wasteful spending rather than consider land use decisions, they should run for the Board of Supervisors where such decisions are made.

Until then they should stay in their own sandbox.

Respectfully submitted,

Neil Williamson, President


20070731williamson 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.  For more information visit the website www.freeenterpriseforum.org

Photo Credits: www.ccijax.com, Albemarle County, www.lowes.com

Committee Mission Creep in Albemarle

This morning’s Daily Progress headline “County nature watchdogs face crisis” suggests the survival of a vital committee is in danger.  Nothing could be further from the truth. This is an advisory committee that has strayed far from its original mission and would be best served to be disbanded.

A little history, prior to the formation of the Natural Heritage Committee, The Free Enterprise Forum and others questioned whether the tasks proposed for the committee were appropriate for County government.  The Natural Heritage Committee’s charge (from the Albemarle County website) is as follows:

The Natural Heritage Committee is an advisory committee that maintains the County’s Biodiversity Assessment, advises the Board of Supervisors, the Planning Commission, and County staff on applying biodiversity information to land-use decision-making, and supports biodiversity education in the County. 

Albemarle County’s July 6, 2005 Executive Summary provides a concise history of the inception of the Natural Heritage Committee:

In November 2001, the Board of Supervisors authorized the creation of a Biodiversity Work Group (BWG), whose charge was to begin the Biodiversity Assessment of the County called for in the Natural Resource and Cultural Assets chapter of the Comprehensive Plan, and to advise the Board on the composition of a permanent advisory committee on biodiversity issues. The BWG was made up of citizen volunteers including local naturalists, professionals in biological and environmental sciences, and experts in environmental education. On December 1, 2004, the Board accepted the report of the Biodiversity Work Group.

On March 2, 2005, the Board authorized the creation of the standing Natural Heritage Committee, a technical advisory group on biodiversity issues, as recommended by the Natural Resources and Cultural Assets chapter of the Comprehensive Plan.

Interestingly on another portion of the Albemarle County website the Natural Heritage Committee defined their mission MUCH more expansively:


The mission of the Natural Heritage Committee (NHC) is to maintain and restore the County’s
native biological diversity and provide a healthy environment for the citizens of Albemarle County.


In my years of watching local government, this is the largest leap of self importance I have ever seen.  This appointed advisory committee of volunteers is responsible for maintaining and restoring the native biological diversity ?????? 


This is a clear example of Mission Creep.  This committee honestly believes (and staff must concur as they put it on the website) that their charge is far greater than anything that has been voted on by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors.  In usurping this power, the NHC has diminished their considerable scientific credentials and drifted far from their original mission. 


This brings us yesterday’s Board of Supervisors meeting, where this committee in presenting its Annual Report indicated if they did not get additional funding and staff support some of their well qualified  volunteers would resign. 


As the Free Enterprise Forum said in 2005, the documentation of Albemarle County’s ever evolving biodiversity is best left to the many qualified science based environmental organizations operating in our region and to the academic sector. 


If the NHC wishes to take its ball and go home, Albemarle County would be better off looking to  scientific organizations outside of County government to inform decisions related to biodiversity.