County candidates square off on growth issues at final forum

By Sean Tubbs
Charlottesville Tomorrow
Monday, October 26, 2009

Population growth, transportation improvements and protecting the watershed were the three topics discussed at the final candidate forum for the six men vying for the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors. The forum, held on October 22, 2009, was sponsored by Advocates for a Sustainable Albemarle Population (ASAP), Alliance for Community Choice in Transportation (ACCT), the Piedmont Environmental Council and the Rivanna Conservation Society.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20091022-Final-County-Forum

Watch the video:

Albemarle County Candidates Forum from Charlottesville Tomorrow on Vimeo.

The forum was moderated by Bob Gibson, Executive Director of the Sorensen Institute for Political Leadership at the University of Virginia.

The sponsors asked three long questions in advance of the forum, each of which was backed up with facts and footnotes.

Download the full list of questions here

Question 1: In light of ASAP’s survey on the area’s ecosystem services capacity, what policy implications do you envision for the pending revision of the Comprehensive Plan? What additional facts would be necessary to help you form your opinion about the desirability of capping County growth at an optimal sustainable population size?

Rodney Thomas (R-Rio): “I think the research for this study was flawed because it didn’t take into consideration technological advances and the increase in growth and density proposed by the master plan… After the last drought, many residents stepped up and worked to reduce the amount of water they used.... We can continue to be good stewards of the land and not handcuff future generations… I don’t believe in population control.”

David Slutzky (D-Rio): “The comprehensive plan is a beautiful statement of intent, but intent is empty, if you will, without process to support it, and we are limited in our process elements to our comprehensive plan… We need to strengthen policy choices that would lead to rural area protection….”

Dennis Rooker (I-Jack Jouett): “Some of the additional information we need is really what I would call geographic specific information about the areas that we need to focus on to better protect areas where natural resources are housed. One of the things we do know is that forest protection is incredibly important.”

Madison Cummings (D-Samuel Miller): “The facts presented should give us all pause regarding the future size of our population. The study gives us time to address the possibility of rampant growth… If we can keep the growth in the urban ring… we’ll be able to mitigate the potentially harmful effects on our water, forests and fields.”

Duane Snow (R-Samuel Miller): “The study is valuable from the standpoint of helping to illustrate the needfor us to continue to set clear-cut policies in terms of zoning… I asked the question if the study took into account conservation easements… [the Consultant] said no… Right now some of the things we can continue to do is fund the [Acquisition of Conservation Easements] program…”

John Lowry (I-Samuel Miller): “I did see some things in the study that didn’t seem quite right. I am in North Garden, only 6.5% developed, and the study said the population could go from 6,800 to 60,000, and I don’t see that happening… It’s good to have the discussion in a conceptual and abstract sense because it’s better to plan for your future than not plan for your future…”

Question 2: Do you support the approach taken in the Places29 Master Plan to address traffic congestion through parallel roads, bus rapid transit, grade-separated interchanges and better facilities for cyclists and pedestrians? If so, how will you secure funding? If not, what is your plan for addressing the transportation problems of the County?

David Slutzky (D-Rio): “If we’re going to have traffic, meaning people moving from place to place, I think we need to disperse and diffuse that energy across modalities… We’ve got to get people out of cars and into alternative modes of transportation… To the extent that people are in automobiles, we need to create a network of parallel roads… How we pay for them is a whole other matter….”

Rodney Thomas (R-Rio): “I know of no place in the United States where a community our size has significantly increased alternative transportation by throwing massive amounts of taxpayer dollars at it, so I am inclined to think that throwing money at a fleet of empty buses is not the answer.... We need some of the parallel roads that are on the drawing board put in place, but at this time there does not appear to be any money for them…”

Dennis Rooker (I-Jack Jouett): “We sought a bill at the legislature last year that would have allowed us to have a public referendum on whether or not we could add up to a penny on the sales tax for dedicated transportation funding for this area. The legislature did not allow that to get out of committee. Had we done that… we would have had adequate transportation funds to do most of the things that we know need to be done.”

John Lowry (I-Samuel Miller): “If we have the seed money that we can raise on our own, that will allow us to do debt issues of long term capital to finance our improvements in the transportation system. After all, they’re long-term investments and they’ll pay us back… We really need to have the Sunset Avenue/Fontaine Avenue connector….”

Madison Cummings (D-Samuel Miller): “We must find ways to get out of our cars…If the General Assembly were to at least allow the localities to choose what improvements their citizens would desire and how to fund them by means of local referenda, I believe we would do the responsible thing.”

Duane Snow (R-Samuel Miller): “I think that we need the parallel roads… I’m not interested in seeing in seeing a through-way with U.S. 29 with grade-separated interchanges and increasing the speed limit to 60 miles an hour….”

Question 3: The County’s comprehensive plan calls for a number of policies to protect the Rivanna watershed, but a number have not been implemented. Can you comment on the County’s willingness to approve developments that are consistent with the plan, but its unwillingness to support policies such as the Mountain Overlay District? Do you agree with the County passing ordinances to make sure clean water flows towards the Chesapeake Bay?

Dennis Rooker (I-Jack Jouett): “The County amended the zoning ordinance to include driveway standards… The County amended the water protection ordinance to require stream buffers and all intermittent and perennial streams… The County amended its process for development in the rural areas to require that building permits include critical resource reviews….”

John Lowry (I-Samuel Miller): “I do feel like Albemarle County is very effectively managed… I do support ordinances to protect the watershed… I think we need to have firm policies that we will not expand our growth area….”

Madison Cummings (D-Samuel Miller): “There should be equal respect given to protecting the natural environment as there is to development… I feel like we’ve made a promise to our fellow citizens in this community and the other states that feed into the Bay… We all need to do a better job… I feel like we must protect our forests because they clean the air, they hold the soil from erosion, and they enhance the quality of the water….”

Duane Snow (R-Samuel Miller): “Working on the Architectural Review Board, we started taking a really close look at how these projects were developing and making sure they got the controls in place… In large-scale development we need to make sure we have the runoff that we’ve had in the past… I’ve spent my life trying to educate people on how to take care of their land  and how to improve water quality… I look at myself as one of the original environmentalists in the area….”

Rodney Thomas (R-Rio): “I think the solutions arrived at by the Board of Supervisors over the past several years were a reasonable balancing of the rights of property owners and improved steps to preserve our ecosystems…100 foot buffers on streams, required timely vegetation on development sites, driveway requirements in rural standards… We must be careful not to make farming impossible by making rules that limit our farming heritage….”

David Slutzky (D-Rio): “The comp plan gives us guidance… but it’s the Board’s job to carry out that will… How do we get further? I tell you when we sit there at a Board hearing and the folks who are there to defend their property rights are out in numbers, and the folks that want to have ecological systems protected for the benefit of future generations are at home talking about it among themselves, the political will isn’t there for our Board to be more proactive and assertive….”

TIMELINE FOR PODCAST:

• 01:00 - Introduction from Bob Gibson, Executive Director of the Sorensen Institute for Political Leadership
• 04:50 - Gibson introduces the candidates
• 07:00 - Question 1
• 08:30 - Rodney Thomas (R-Rio) responds
• 10:30 - David Slutzky (D-Rio) responds
• 14:30 - Dennis Rooker (I-Jack Jouett) responds
• 17:30 - Madison Cummings (D-Samuel Miller) responds
• 20:00 - Duane Snow (R-Samuel Miller) responds
• 22:20 - John Lowry (I-Samuel Miller) responds
• 24:15 - Gibson reads additional information to set up Samuel Miller rebuttal
• 25:30 - Cummings rebuttal to Question 1
• 27:15 - Snow rebuttal to Question 1
• 30:20 - Question 2
• 32:10 - David Slutzky (D-Rio) responds
• 34:10 - Rodney Thomas (R-Rio) responds
• 36:00 - Slutzky rebuts Thomas
• 37:00 - Thomas rebuts Slutzky
• 38:20 - Dennis Rooker (I-Jack Jouett) responds
• 41:45 - John Lowry (I-Samuel Miller) responds
• 43:45 - Madison Cummings (D-Samuel Miller) responds
• 45:45 - Duane Snow (R-Samuel Miller) responds
• 47:45 - Lowry rebuts Snow and Cummings
• 49:40 - Cummings rebuts Snow on the idea of zero based budgeting
• 51:15 - Snow uses his rebuttal time to call for economic development
• 52:45 - Question 3
• 54:00 - Dennis Rooker (I-Jack Jouett) responds
• 57:30 - Duane Snow (R-Samuel Miller) responds
• 59:45 - John Lowry (I-Samuel Miller) responds
• 1:01:00 - Madison Cummings (D-Samuel Miller) responds
• 1:04:00 – Samuel Miller candidates rebut on question 3
• 1:09:40 - Rodney Thomas (R-Rio) responds
• 1:10:30 - David Slutzky (D-Rio) responds
• 1:12:00 - Rio candidates rebut on question 3

Supervisors get strategic plan update heading into annual retreat

By Tarpley Ashworth
Charlottesville Tomorrow
Thursday, October 15, 2009

At their annual retreat this Friday, members of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will meet with County staff to grapple with the challenge of creating a balanced 5-year financial plan. Supervisors will be asked to weigh in on possible service level reductions and financial assumptions revenue sources such as the real estate property tax rate. The County’s strategic plan, which is revised every four years, is a collection of long-term goals meant to direct County staff in their daily operations. The strategic plan is also expected to guide the Board’s recommendations  and it includes five central objectives:

• Enhance quality of life
• Protect natural resources
• Develop infrastructure
• Manage growth and development
• Funding the future

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20091007-BOS-Strategic-Plan

Lori Allshouse, the County’s Manager of Strategic Planning and Performance, briefed the Board of Supervisors at their meeting on Wednesday, October 7th on how well the County has met the goals outlined in the FY 2007-2010 Strategic Plan.

Overall, she said the County completed several important objectives, including increasing collaboration with the school system and developing a comprehensive funding strategy. But significant challenges remain, such as rising unemployment and meeting transportation needs in the wake of budget cuts from state agencies such as the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT).

Regarding collaboration with the school system, Allshouse cited the County’s recent receipt of a $6 million Safe Schools, Healthy Students grant which required a strong relationship between schools and County staff to qualify. She also said that the Board’s adoption of its first five-year financial plan last year satisfied the goal of creating a joint future funding plan.

Allshouse identified several objectives that were nearly complete as well. The County’s focus on affordable housing in recent years has yielded some benefits such as receiving a $700,000 grant for improvements to Crozet Meadows, a housing development in Crozet intended for low-income elderly residents, and increased enrollment in the Homebuyer Education Program.

The goal of adopting master plans for all five designated growth areas is well underway, too. Two master plans are complete (Pantops and Crozet), two are scheduled to be adopted this fiscal year (Village of Rivanna and Places29) and one is scheduled for completion by FY 2012 (Southern Urban Area).

Source: Albemarle County

According to Allshouse, other issues are proving more difficult, but she estimates that these goals will also eventually be met. Only 23% of local streams meet Virginia’s aquatic life standards (in line with the state average).  The County has met 87% of its goal for conservation easements. Currently, 77,899 acres of County land, or 17%, is under easement and the County has received approximately 20 applications for easements that it has not yet processed.

The County has struggled to meet its public safety goals. The construction of the Ivy and Pantops fire stations has been delayed by funding and site location issues. Albemarle County is 18 police officers short of its target for 1.5 officers for every 1,000 citizens. Additionally, officers respond to Priority 1 emergencies in five minutes or less only 57% of the time, while the goal is 85%. Priority 1 emergency calls are classified as those where life and safety are suspected to be threatened. In rural areas, officers are responding to all calls in an average of 13 minutes when the goal is 10 minutes.

Supervisor David Slutzky (Rio) explained these metrics by pointing out that these slower than hoped for response times were a direct product of the acknowledged officer shortage. “Obviously there is a correlation between the reduction in number of officers and the opportunity to respond in a timely fashion,” he said.

Supervisor Dennis Rooker (Jack Jouett) raised the issue that Priority 1 emergencies included responses to home alarms, and since many of these responses were false alarms, it skewed the data to make response times seem worse than they actually were.

“Police response to private emergency alarm systems going off is one of the biggest government subsidies to private business in the world,” said Rooker. “The amount of money spent on police departments doing this is immense.”

County Executive Bob Tucker said that there had been discussions in the past about instituting a false alarm penalty, and that such a proposal could  come before the Board later this year if they chose to reconsider the issue

The most significant challenges, however, loom for transportation and the job market. Allshouse reported that even though transportation had seen some bright spots in the region, such as a 9% increase in ridership for JAUNT and the 18% increase in ridership for the Charlottesville Transit Service, the 74% budget cut from VDOT towards Albemarle County projects since 2004 remains a substantial hindrance to transportation improvements within the County. 

Steve Allshouse, the County’s Coordinator of Research and Analysis, presented an economic climate summary to the Board as well. He reported that the County experienced a net loss of 487 jobs between 2007 and 2008 and that the unemployment rate increased from 3.4% to 4.9% between August 2008 and August 2009. This compares to 6.5% and 9.6% unemployment in Virginia and the United States respectively, but Allshouse warned that this gap between Albemarle County and the state and national averages was lessening during the current recession. He also reported that the County’s taxable sales declined between 2007 and 2008 as well.

Supervisor Ken Boyd (Rivanna) said that unemployment statistics, by their methodology, does not count those unemployed who have given up searching for jobs. Slutzky added that unemployment didn’t adequately measure the under-employed rate either.

Friday’s Retreat to discuss changes for the FY 2010-14 Strategic Plan will be held at the Virginia Department of Forestry in the UVA Fontaine Research Park from 9:00 am-to 3:00 pm.

Experts discuss ways to boost Albemarle County farming enterprises

By Sean Tubbs
Charlottesville Tomorrow
Friday, September 25, 2009

One of the best ways to help improve the business of agriculture is to connect consumers with food producers. That was one of the  main points raised during a panel discussion on the business of agriculture held Thursday by the Charlottesville Regional Chamber of Commerce and the Free Enterprise Forum.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20090924-Farms

Agriculture is the number one industry in Virginia, with an estimated annual impact of $55 billion according to the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. In 2007, 895 farms in Albemarle County brought in nearly $4.5 million in gross income according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

However, many farmers would like to restore the place that farming once played in Albemarle. In his opening comments, Chamber Chair Bryan Thomas told the crowd that in 1940, half the population of Albemarle County was involved in some form of agriculture. However, he said by 1970, that number had declined to less than 6%.

The panel consisted of Agriculture Commission Todd Haymore, author Frank Levering and Chad Zakaib of Jefferson Vineyards

One of the panelists was Todd Haymore, Virginia’s Commissioner of Agriculture. Haymore, who grew up on his grandfather’s farm in Pittsylvania County, said today’s farmers need to capitalize on every opportunity, and he said the role of state government is to help facilitate those opportunities.

“What I’ve tried to do with precious taxpayer dollars is to make sure we’re putting them to the best use possible trying to create jobs and as much opportunity as we can,” Haymore said. He added that programs such as “Buy Fresh, Buy Local" and his department’s own “Virginia Finest” help connect Virginia farmers with Virginia consumers.

According to Haymore, agricultural development and farmland preservation are crucial elements to the future of the family farm. He lauded Albemarle County’s Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE) program, which purchases development rights from landowners, but still allows them to use the land for agricultural purposes.

“If we can have all that come together, I see Virginia’s agricultural enterprises being number one for another 400 years,” Haymore said. 

Another panelist was Chad Zakaib, the General Manager of Jefferson Vineyards.  He said his winery’s land is under a conservation easement, which preserves it for future agricultural use - at a cost.

“As an entrepreneur, I look at placing properties under easement with skepticism because there may come a time when I have to liquidate that asset,” Zakaib said. “I’m not particularly interested in having someone tell me what I am or am not able to do.”

Frank Levering, author of a book on the divide between rural and urban Virginia, owns an orchard in Carroll County. He said agricultural tourism can educate people about the challenges and hardships of farming, which could in turn help more people support them.

“For years people have just gone and bought their food at supermarkets having no inkling of where that food came from,” Levering said. “All of a sudden, people are now very interested in who the guy was who grew it.”

Zakaib said that the vast majority of Jefferson Vineyard’s money comes from retail sales sold on premises.

“The reality is that the direct to consumer market is so much more profitable than a business-to-business relationship with a wholesaler or distributor,” said Zakaib. “The flip side is that there are legitimate issues with local government with the idea of people driving around the country buying wine.”

Recently, Albemarle County Supervisor Ann Mallek (White Hall) directed County zoning officials to look at ways to give more flexibility to allow farmers to sell their produce on land they don’t own.

One of the people attending the event was Carl Tinder, President of the Albemarle County Farm Bureau.

“The future of farming in Albemarle County is very bright, but we need to make sure that agriculture has the ability to prosper,” Tinder said. He says the number one thing the County can do to help is to preserve land use taxation, a program which lowers the tax burden for land used for agriculture, open space and forestry.

Another attendee was Sarah Henley of the advocacy group Forever Albemarle. She said she would like state and local laws changed to extend land use taxation to farmers who own less than 5 acres of land. She also called for local schools to boost agricultural education.

Zakaib said he saw a bright future for farming if more people knew about the challenges and benefits of farming.

“Overtime, I think farming will become cool because everyone has to eat,” Zakaib said.

Supervisors prepare for 2010 General Assembly

By Sean Tubbs
Charlottesville Tomorrow
Tuesday, September 8, 2009

There are only four months left until the beginning of the next General Assembly session, and all across Virginia, localities are putting together their lists of legislation they’d like to see passed. Both Albemarle County and Charlottesville use the services of David Blount, a legislative liaison who is employed by the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission. Blount checked in with the Board of Supervisors on September 2, 2009, to get a sense of their priorities.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20090902-BOS-Legislative-Agenda

First, County Attorney Larry Davis briefed Supervisors on some of the legislative successes in the 2009 session of the General Assembly:

• Maintained the County’s ability to fund Acquisition of Conservation Easements program through transient occupancy tax, and managed to keep $2 million in the state budget for the Virginia Land Conservation Foundation.
• Speed limits on unpaved roads lowered to a maximum of 35 miles an hour (HB1837).
• Enabling legislation for creation of Regional Transit Authority was approved (HB2158), though Albemarle and Charlottesville were not permitted to ask voters if they would support a sales tax increase to fund it (HB2161).
• The Rivanna River’s designation as a “scenic river” was expanded to include portion from South Fork Rivanna Reservoir to Woolen Mills (SB957).

Davis also recommended three new items that should be included as priorities:

• A request to allow Albemarle to transfer money VDOT allocates for unpaved roads to other local transportation priorities without being penalized.
• The County’s social services agencies want a guarantee that the state will match federal funds.
• A request to allow Albemarle to transfer money to a non-profit entity to operate the Local Energy Alliance Program (LEAP). Currently state law does not authorize the County to transfer its share of the $500,000 grant it was awarded (along with Charlottesville) to a non-profit that will actually implement the program.

Davis said that many of Albemarle’s requests were not granted in 2009, and he urged the Board to continue including those as priorities in its 2010 legislative agenda. One of these was a request to extend the roll-back period for properties that come out of land use taxation from 5 years to 10 years.

After a ten-minute discussion that continued an earlier debate about the merits of the program, the Supervisors opted to amend the language of the request to allow each locality to determine for themselves if they wanted to extend the period. Blount noted, however, that no legislator agreed to carry the bill for the 2009 General Assembly. 

During the RTA discussion last year, the Charlottesville Regional Chamber of Commerce did not support the legislation for the sales tax referendum. Supervisor David Slutzky (Rio) said he felt the Chamber might be persuaded to support a gas tax to accomplish the same goal of funding local transportation projects with local dollars. However, Supervisor Dennis Rooker (Jack Jouett) said there was currently no mechanism by which money from a gas tax would be returned specifically to its locality of origin.

Supervisor Sally Thomas (Samuel Miller) asked about a rumor she had heard that there may be legislation to cap the amount that water and sewer authorities can charge for connection fees. The Albemarle County Service Authority recently decided to raise their rates in a two-tier process. Blount said he had also heard that rumor, and added that if the recession continues into January, the legislature could be sympathetic to the needs of the building industry.

On that same note, County Attorney Davis said he believes one bill will be introduced to require VDOT to allow signs in medians so developments can advertise new homes. That practice is currently illegal.

“I would have to ask them if they could ever point to a single additional house that has ever been sold because of a sign in the right-of-way,” said Rooker. “All they’re doing is trading aesthetics for a feel-good piece of legislation that accomplishes nothing in terms of overall housing demand.”

TIMELINE FOR PODCAST:

• 01:00 – Introduction from County Attorney Larry Davis
• 04:15 – Slutzky comments on enabling legislation for County to transfer money to LEAP program
• 05:00 – David Blount makes his comments
• 06:00 – Slutzky said he thinks the County should once again ask General Assembly to ask voters if they would approve a sales tax increase
• 8:30 – Supervisor Sally Thomas asks a question about an attempt to change the definition of “urban development area” in state law
• 9:00 – Blount says an attempt to replace proffers with impact fees has “not gained any traction at all”
• 10:00 – Thomas asks about a rumor that there may be legislation to cap the amount of connection fees that can be charged by water and sewer authorities
• 11:00 – Discussion of the possibility of a bill to allow for developers to post signs in VDOT’s right-of-way
• 11:45- Thomas asks about alternative sewer treatment facilities
• 13:45 – Supervisor Ann Mallek (White Hall) asks about conservation easements
• 14:30 – Supervisor Ken Boyd (Rivanna) asks a question about extending land use taxation roll-back period from 5 to 10 years
• 27:20 – Motion to adopt legislative package

Land use revalidation exceeds Albemarle assessor’s expectations; some Supervisors concerned too many landowners will get hit with roll-back taxes

By Sean Tubbs
Charlottesville Tomorrow
Thursday, September 3, 2009

Over 85% of Albemarle County landowners participating in the land use taxation program have submitted revalidation forms, exceeding the expectations of County Assessor Bob Willingham. The deadline to submit a form without incurring a late fee was September 1, 2009.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20090903-BOS-Land-Use

The Board enacted the revalidation process in October 2008 to satisfy critics of the program who claimed it was being abused by people who were not actually using their land for agricultural purposes.  Properties that qualify for the program are granted a property tax rate that is lower than the fair market rate.

Forms were sent in late May to the owners of all 4,927 parcels in the program.

County Assessor Bob Willingham

“As of [the deadline], we’ve received 4,206 back,” said Bob Willingham, the County’s Assessor. “That’s about an 85% success ratio.” The remaining participants have until December 5, 2009 to submit their form. After that, they will be considered to be non-compliant with the program, and subject to paying the fair-market value for the past five-years. This is known as the “roll-back” tax, and can be a hefty amount.

Three weeks ago, the County began a public relations campaign to publicize the deadline.

Supervisors Ann Mallek (White Hall) and Sally Thomas (Samuel Miller) even made personal phone calls to landowners in their districts, encouraging them to return the form.

Some Supervisors concerned about impact of roll-back taxes

Under the program, a landowner must submit a new form any time the use of the land changes, or if their parcel is subdivided. Willingham said that during the revalidation process, many landowners are hoping to adjust how their land is classified to take advantage of an “open-space” category.

The advantage to a landowner is that no agricultural work needs to be done to maintain the land use taxation.  For instance, in order to qualify for the forestry category, a landowner must provide a forest management plan.

To qualify for the open-space category, a landowner must:

• meet Virginia law’s definition for open-space
• must have more than 20 acres
• no construction or major disturbances could be permitted during the course of the agreement
• land must be either under a conservation easement, in an agricultural-forest district, or part of an open-space use agreement signed by the County Executive by the end of this year

Members of the Board were concerned that at least some of the landowners will not meet that last requirement in time. That would mean their land would be subject to “roll-back” taxes.

“It’s that transition that I want to know more about because what people understand is that they [may] have roll-back taxes when they’re only trying to transition to the right category,” said Supervisor Mallek.

Willingham said that in many cases, he has no alternative but to impose the roll-back tax if a landowner is not in compliance.

“People don’t want to hear that, but what you’ve got is a situation where people in a number of cases have had land-use for a long time and they really haven’t qualified,” said Supervisor Dennis Rooker (Jack Jouett).

Supervisors had the chance to adjust the open-space category at the meeting. An ordinance to authorize County Executive Bob Tucker to accept the open-space commitment agreements was on the consent agenda for the September 2, 2009 meeting. Supervisor Mallek and Supervisor Ken Boyd (Rivanna) were concerned that 20 acres was too large a requirement for open space. But Rooker was reluctant to decrease that figure.

“I would be very cautious about going down the road of adopting a plan that basically allows a lot that doesn’t have a house on it to qualify for land use,” Rooker said.

Thomas said she was concerned that elderly landowners might no longer be able to maintain their land, and consequently their qualification to remain in the land use taxation program.

“I’m sure you’re going to get a few people and it’s going to be horrendous and maybe force them off their land,” Thomas said. She said she would like to find a way to help connect those individuals with people willing to work on farming projects.

“We are working very hard with people not to remove them from land use,” Willingham said. His staff is educating landowners about how to become compliant if they are not already. Willingham avoided stopped short of using the word ‘lenient.’

"You don’t have to harvest trees every year. If you’re talking hardwoods it might be a 100 years. In agriculture, you don’t have to produce a crop every year because it’s good to let the land go fallow and regenerate,” Willingham said.

Mallek asked if there was any way to prevent such landowners from being penalized. County Attorney Larry Davis said state law requires roll-back taxes to be applied if the use of the land changes.

“If someone has stopped farming and made no provisions to try to continue farming for an extended period of time, that would be a change of use to a non-farming use,” Davis said. “If someone stopped farming for one season and had been continuing to try to find someone to till the property, that may be able to be determined to simply be idle and not be a non-qualifying use. That’s a judgment call that the assessor has to make.”

Supervisors will revisit land use taxation in 2010 to see how the revalidation program may be tweaked.

Population study finds environmental degradation after area reaches population of 200,000; Current build-out population estimated at 400,000 people

By Brian Wheeler
Charlottesville Tomorrow
Sunday, August 23, 2009

A final report on local population and the environment, funded in part by both Charlottesville and Albemarle local governments, was released last week by Advocates for a Sustainable Albemarle Population (ASAP).  The Board of Supervisors agreed to spend $25,000 for the scientific aspects of the study, and the City of Charlottesville paid $11,000. Additional funding came from ASAP members as well as a $50,000 grant from the Colcom Foundation of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

The report, the first product of ASAP’s Optimal Sustainable Population Size Project, is entitled “Estimating Impacts of Population Growth on Ecosystem Services for the Community of Albemarle County and Charlottesville, VA.”  The report’s principal researcher was Dr. Claire Jantz, an assistant professor at Shippensburg University.

Download report

Charlottesville Tomorrow invited Jack Marshall, ASAP’s President, in for an interview to discuss the report’s findings.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20090821-ASAP-Marshall

JACK MARSHALL INTERVIEW

Note: Remarks have been summarized and are not necessarily direct quotes. The podcast includes the entire interview audio.

TIMES CORRESPOND TO AUDIO PODCAST

00:27 – Introduction by Brian Wheeler, Executive Director, Charlottesville Tomorrow

01:05 – WHEELER: What is the major finding of this research?

01:14 – MARSHALL: Report is intended to help us understand how we define an optimal population.  First phase of research is to help identify biological carrying capacity of the Charlottesville-Albemarle community.  Report shows that as growth occurs, two things happen together:  1) good things like fields and forests disappear; and 2) bad things occur like impervious surfaces and pollution.  Continued growth will so impair ecosystem services that our community will not be locally sustainable.  Smart growth approaches (e.g. having designated growth areas) are necessary, but they are not sufficient.  Growth will ultimately spill out into rural areas.  Researchers are saying that we have to think about how big we want to be.  Do we want to cap growth before we reach these ecological danger points?

04:56 - WHEELER: Why did you do this research and can you tell us about the research team?

05:04 – MARSHALL: First, the research team was led by Dr. Claire Jantz , an assistant professor at Shippensburg University.  She is a specialist in land use change modeling.  We asked her to do this because as housing developments eat away at our environment, something has to give.  Our ecological system is not just a pretty face, they provide benefits of immense value to humans that we tend to take for granted and they are essential for sustainability of an area.  If they get degraded, the community is in trouble, and we wanted to see if local growth had a local impact on our very own ecosystem services.

07:35 - WHEELER: Why don’t you tell us about the methodology.

07:42 – MARSHALL:  For purposes of this research, WHEN growth occurs is not relevant.  First step was to project WHERE the growth will occur.  The City and County were divided into eight sub-areas and various growth levels were evaluated in a computer model.  Current zoning and historical development patterns were incorporated in the model.  Hypothetically, each area is developed to a certain build-out number, and then continued growth spills out into the rural area.  The population number at which no more development could occur in the computer model was found to be 400,000 people.  We have about 135,000 people today.  This build-out population estimate of 400,000 is pretty close to research done by a different methodology 5-7 years ago by the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission (TJPDC).  Next major issue was to assess impact to ecosystem services with population growth using computer software called CITYGreen.

13:06 - WHEELER: You mentioned a couple population numbers, let’s review those again—135,000 people today, build-out population of 400,000.  Were you surprised that matched the TJPDC’s findings?

13:45 – MARSHALL: The fact that it coincides with the TJPDC build-out number pleases but doesn’t surprise us.

14:04 – WHEELER: What optimal sustainable population did this research indicate was a good fit?

14:18 – MARSHALL: You are pushing me to give you specific numbers, but all this research does is show what happens to certain ecosystem services as population increases.  At 125% population increase, which is about 280,000 people, roughly twice what we have now, there is in this model a degradation of ecosystem services, but contained primarily within the designated growth areas.  As growth continues, it spills out into the rural areas, and that’s when we see a whole different level of impact.  This report goes into detail about those impacts on ecosystem services.

16:18 - WHEELER: Let me read a quote from the report and you can react to it:

“If the community wishes to maintain ecosystem services across the study area, a population of roughly 200,000 or less should be maintained, with that growth being focused in the growth areas. If it is acceptable to sacrifice services in the developing areas, a population up to roughly 300,000 could be accommodated.”

Is 200,000 to 300,000 the population range that ASAP was looking for?

17:05 – MARSHALL: You are trying to get me to indicate a number or a range that ASAP wants to defend.  At this point we are not prepared to come out with specific numbers.  This is the first phase of the study focusing on biological carrying capacity.  Once we have the whole range of studies completed this fall, then we will be more inclined to come out with specific numbers.

18:52 - WHEELER: Let’s talk about the population trends.  She identified 200,000 as a population not to go beyond to avoid damaging ecosystem services.  How soon do you think we will reach 200,000 people?

19:20 – MARSHALL: City population is pretty stable, but County has been growing at 2.1% a year for the last 30-40 years.  At that rate, we double our population every 33 years.  Normally I would say you could extrapolate that, but we have slowed growth because of the global economic downturn.  There is no question that temporarily we are growing slower.  I am afraid that might lull our community into a false sense that we have licked the growth problem when in fact it will roar back as soon as people want to buy houses again. 

If we were to continue growing at 2.1%, I think that a population of 200,000 might occur in about the year 2040.

20:32 - WHEELER: You mentioned that there is additional information you want to get in front of local government, and that you want to gather public feedback about their reactions.  What do you think are some of the policy implications that local officials will have to wrestle with?

20:52 – MARSHALL: We think the community should be debating three issues.

1. Can our community population grow endlessly or should we cap growth at some optimal sustainable size, short of a size that would be determined either by accident or by the preferences of the folks who make a profit from growth and who are concerned much more with short term gain than the long term community good.  Do we want to grow endlessly, essentially until we get to this 400,000 number?
2. If we want to cap growth at some point, what is that right size?
3. What fair and legal mechanisms might be put in place to achieve this population size goal?

Just because we don’t have satisfactory answers to the second two questions doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to answer the first question.  We may not find answers to the second two questions unless we take the first question pretty seriously.  If we decide to avoid growing to the point where our ecosystems are destroyed, our quality of life changes, our taxes are jacked up….If we say we don’t want that, then I have a feeling that this very progressive, well educated, thoughtful community, can come up with the mechanisms, with the number (or range) at which to stop, and the mechanisms to do it.

22:43 - WHEELER: Some of ASAP’s critics over the years have said that you do want to identify a cap on population in this community.  Is that a goal of ASAP?

22:55 – MARSHALL: Yes.  Of course it’s a goal.  It should to be a goal for the whole community.  And we are leading the charge.  We don’t pretend to know what it is yet.  That’s the second question that I just raised of the three.

We have a definitive answer to the first question.  Should we continue to grow endlessly or identify an optimal sustainable size?  The answer to that, ASAP argues, is [that we identify an optimal population size].  The second question is, what is that right size?  We don’t at this point know, and that is one reasons we launched these research projects to help us identify it.

24:11 – WHEELER: Has any other community in the country done this?

24:15 – MARSHALL: In the press release, we say it is a groundbreaking study.  No other community in the United States is undertaking this kind of research to get a sense of its biological carrying capacity. 

25:08 – WHEELER: Why do you think that is?

25:10 – MARSHALL: This is an idea whose time has come.  More and more communities are recognizing that smart growth, while good, ain’t enough and that we’ve got to go beyond it and that communities need to identify the point at which they want to stop.  Our children’s children’s children will be irate if we don’t deal with this growth problem.  We will have failed future generations if we don’t deal with local as well as global population growth. 

25:54 – WHEELER: Some of the policy implications we might think about in this community include potentially downzoning rural areas, downzoning growth areas, water supply… are there others that you think about?

25:10 – MARSHALL:  Yes there are, but first let me go back to water supply.  ASAP believes that we should not be using water supply as a limit to growth.  What our community should do is define an optimal population size and then provide the water for that population.  But we shouldn’t limit growth by limiting water.  

Yes there are other [policy] mechanisms.  Conservation easements, the County’s Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE) program, and we should look more seriously at the transfer of development rights.  But until we take the need to cap growth more seriously, we are going to dither about transfer of development rights, as happened in a series of contentious debates. 

27:40 – WHEELER: I want to go back to water and you clarified that it was not the position of ASAP to use the water supply debate happening in the community as a way to limit growth, or that you would build a water plan that resulted in limiting growth.  We talked about the trend in population, and if the current trend continues, by 2040 we will have 200,000 people.  That is a number your research says maintains ecosystems.  Supporters of the current water supply plan, who are trying to plan for a fifty-year time horizon, might look at this research and say we know 200,000 people now is a sustainable population number, should we plan to have enough water for at least that many people during the next fifty years. 

28:44 – MARSHALL:  You are trying to push me into a corner I don’t want to be pushed into, but yes that may well be one of the implications.  I have a feeling all sides of this water plan debate will find something in here to glom on to.  If the community makes a firm decision that we will make every effort to stop growth at 200,000, then yes our water supply should be aimed at that, and our schools, and our roads, and the whole infrastructure and we don’t have to build for a population of 300,000.  I think it would solve a lot of problems.  It would help decision makers make more wise decisions about how much commercial growth we need, for example, to me the needs of 200,000 people.

29:57 – WHEELER: I laid out one argument that supporters of the water supply plan might take out of this report.  Thinking about those concerned about growth, and there seem to be a growing number of people in the community, when they talk about the water supply plan, saying they don’t want to support growth in Albemarle County.  Is there something in this report or in ASAP’s position about this research that you think, some people that might say even 200,000 people is too many, how might you reconcile the research with some of those views in the community?

30:41 – MARSHALL:  This is the first of what we hope will be a whole raft of studies and its purpose is not to provide unequivocal answers to the kinds of questions you are asking, but to start to provide some facts where before we’ve had only had opinions about growth.  We need to know what growth means.  What will it cost us environmentally, fiscally?  What does it mean for the quality of life, for the character of our community? 

I know I have friends who think we are already overpopulated, that the 135,000 we have now is far too many.  I have other friends who think that 400,000 is nifty, and maybe even more.  A lot of it is going to be subjective opinion, but that should be informed by facts about the impacts of more or fewer people here.

32:00 – WHEELER: Where do you go next with this research?

32:04 – MARSHALL:  We have four other interesting studies in this first phase to help us understand the biological carrying capacity.  The other really big one is a look at our community’s ecological footprint.  Other studies will look at the impacts of population growth on groundwater resources, air quality, and stream health.  After we give these reports to the Board of Supervisors, we will launch into a second phase that looks at the socioeconomic issues in helping us better understand what the growth means for quality of life and our taxes.

34:13 – WHEELER: When do you expect the first phase to be done and the second phase to start?

34:19 – MARSHALL:  In the next few weeks.  All the remaining reports are in the works and we expect them to appear within weeks, and we will as soon as we can after that launch the second phase.  Simultaneously with the second phase we will have an outreach community dialogue… and we will be working with the Institute for Environmental Negotiation to take the results of these studies into the community.

ASAP invites Farm Bureau to discussion on future of Albemarle's rural farms

Panelists (L to R) Ann Mallek, Stephen Levine (background), & Carl Tinder (foreground)

On June 18, 2009, Advocates for a Sustainable Albemarle Population (ASAP) held a panel discussion entitled: “The Future of Albemarle Farmland.” Carl Tinder, President of the Albemarle County Farm Bureau, and Stephen Levine, an ASAP Board member, discussed their respective organization’s efforts to insure a healthy rural environment and the preservation of local farms. Albemarle County Supervisor Ann Mallek, served as moderator. An audience of about thirty people gathered at the Westminster Presbyterian Church to listen to the panelists answer questions they received in advance and to those from the audience.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20090618-ASAP

QUESTIONS & TIMELINE FOR PODCAST
01:14 - Introduction by David Shreve

Moderated by Ann Mallek

10:49 - Question 1 - Much of the land in Albemarle County now in housing developments was farmland in past years. What is to stop this pattern from continuing in the future?

14:29 - Question 2 - Is the non-farming community justified in encouraging local government to enact regulations that will reduce the probability that developers and speculators will buy farmland and turn it into residential developments?

18:44 - Question 3 - Advocates for a Sustainable Albemarle Population (ASAP), because of the use of the word “population” in its name, has sometimes been identified as a “one trick pony.” That is, some mistakenly assume that population is its only concern, rather than an essential component in issues such as environmental degradation, traffic congestion, sprawl, resource depletion, strained infrastructure, and threat to our quality of life. What in your view is the connection between population size and these issues?

21:51 - Question 4 - What could be done to develop more common ground between ASAP and local Farm Bureau members? Are they aware of the existence of ASAP and why it is trying to stabilize local population at a sustainable level?

24:04 - Question 5 - Conservation easements are one tool for protecting rural land from excessive development. Other such tools include zoning, subdivision limits, growth boundaries, and the protection of prime agricultural land, forests, and wildlife habitat. Given that U.S. and Virginia courts have consistently decided that these tools violate no property rights, how does this indicate that we (everyone involved) could begin to use these tools in a more robust and effective manner?

28:44 - Question 6 - Does your organization support TDRs? Why or why not?

32:34 - Question 7 - Since much of the appreciated value of rural land is related directly to ongoing public investments in the nearby urban and suburban region, does this not make land use in these affected rural areas a necessary focus of public policy?

43:19 - Question 8 - In the past five decades, traditional methods of farming have increasingly given way to large scale, industrial farming, resulting in significant soil erosion, lowering of aquifers, widespread pollution of soil, air, and water (with pesticides, fertilizer, and hormones), and the excessive use of antibiotics demanded by the crowded, unnatural, and stressful conditions that characterize factory farming--agricultural practices that surely threaten the very sustainability of agriculture itself, as well as the health of the American people. What can your organization do to address these problems and to promote more sustainable and environmentally healthy methods of food production?

49:30 - Question 9 - Critics of the USDA claim that its policies are designed to favor large industrial farming operations at the expense of traditional family farms, making it very difficult for such farms to support their   families and discouraging people who would like to become farmers from pursuing such a career. What can be done to make family farming as it existed up to the 1950s a more viable option than it presently is and ensure that farming remains, or becomes anew, a viable career in this county?

53:14 - Question 10 - There is a move about to provide a permanent home for Charlottesville’s farmers’ market that could function year-round, as well as other initiatives for moving agricultural products more directly from farmer to consumer. How important do you think it is to local farmers to provide these new avenues for selling agricultural products? The ACE program attempts to compensate farmers for voluntarily giving up development rights -- rights they say they will not use in any case.  Why don’t more farmers take advantage of the ACE program?

Audience Questions:

1:01:25 - Question on not supporting county funding of food hubs

1:03:49 - Question on how the Farm Bureau can help the small farmer

1:05:29 - Question on how industrial farms are defined

1:09:18 - Question on farms near the Gulf of Mexico

1:11:04 - Comments on rural area development and a consumer-driven market

1:17:09 - Comment on real estate revenue for farms

1:20:00 - Question on property taxes are on value of farm

1:24:54 - Question on which state has a better tax system

1:26:19 - Comment on the term industrial farm and the future of local farming

1:31:37 - Question on next generation of farmers

1:35:59 - Comment on farming lifestyle

1:40:04 - Question on large corporations affecting local farmers

1:44:24 - Discussion on property tax in California

1:52:26 - Mallek concludes

Supervisors updated on rural protection strategies; Frozen programs, poor economy hindering progress

By Julia Glendening & Sean Tubbs
Charlottesville Tomorrow
Friday, June 5, 2009

In March 2005, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors approved the Rural Areas section of the Comprehensive Plan complete with a set of implementation strategies. At the Board’s meeting on June 3, 2009, David Benish, the County’s Chief of Planning, presented an update about the progress of the plan and discussed the results of five priority strategies in detail. In general, the County will fall short of many of its goals due to a lack of funding, including one to place an additional 30,000 acres of land into conservation easement programs by June 30, 2010.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20090603-rural-areas

Rural area of Albemarle County

The top priority called for in the rural area plan was to adopt policies to address the phasing and clustering of development in Albemarle’s rural fields, farms, and forests. In September 2006, a deadlocked Board of Supervisors failed to enact these ordinances. Phasing would have required rural lots to be developed in a time-released fashion, whereas clustering would have required more compact development when those lots are developed.

Benish also reminded the Board that the discussion of creating a Mountain Overlay District led to proposals related to protection of critical slopes, an expanded stream buffer ordinance, and extension of waiting periods for family sub-divisions. While the Board also dead-locked on these issues in October 2007, amended versions of these strategies were enacted four months later in February 2008.

The second priority called for in the rural plan was to protect more parcels of land from development by placing them under conservation easement. The Board adopted a strategic plan goal of protecting an additional 30,000 acres by June 30, 2010.  This goal could be achieved either through the County’s Acquisition of Conservation Easement (ACE) program or through other programs such as the Virginia Outdoors Foundation. Funding for ACE funding initially went up to help the County achieve its goal, but funds were reduced in FY2009 and FY2010 to help the County balance its budget. Benish said a reduced funding will make it difficult to achieve this goal.

The third priority was to create a series of programs to support the rural area including initiatives to support local agriculture. The Board authorized the creation of a staff position, but the County’s hiring freeze has meant the position has never been filled and will not be for the foreseeable future. Benish said support to boost local agriculture will likely rely on community-led initiatives, such as the Piedmont Environmental Council’s Buy Fresh Buy Local program.

The County’s fourth rural protection priority was to establish new guidelines on allowing additional commercial uses in “crossroads communities.” So far, the Board has only adopted one of these provisions – a zoning text amendment to expand the commercial uses allowed in “country stores.” Benish said additional initiatives have been deferred because of a lack of staff resources.

The final priority was to use the County’s fiscal policy to regulate growth by re-examining the County’s land use taxation program. Under this program, landowners who use their property for agricultural purposes, forestry, or open space pay a tax rate that is lower than fair market value. The Board adopted a land use revalidation program in October 2008 to make sure that the program is not being abused.

Benish also mentioned several other initiatives that have been implemented in addition to the primary strategies. These categories and their updates include:

Albemarle County Board of Supervisors

• Paving rural roads: VDOT’s rural rustic paving program has been established as the preferred form of road paving in the rural area. The Planning Commission and the Board have also established a policy where all state funds for paving will be allocated to roads in the development area first. Additionally, state funding is not expected to be available for the next 6 years.
• Transfer of Development Rights: State legislation enabling TDRs have been approved, and a community wide-discussion on possibility potential program was held last year.
• Zoning and Subdivision Text Amendments Deferred: code amendments to protect biodiversity and historic resources have so far not come before the Board.
• Monticello Historic District: a new zoning district was created for Monticello.
• Agricultural/Forestal Districts: promotional program began but was frozen due to budget conditions that resulted in unfilled positions.

After Benish’s presentation, Lee Catlin, Albemarle County's Community Relations Manager, shared additional details on the Acquisition of Conservation Easement program. At the present, the county has acquired 16,580 acres, meaning that 13,420 acres will be needed to reach the goal.

“Until the economic situation stabilizes and properties regain some of their value, there may be reluctance on people’s parts right now to make a major decision about putting a property in conservation easements,” Catlin said.

Supervisor Sally Thomas (Samuel Miller) commented on how previously people were not able to develop an area because of septic system requirements.  However, the 2009 General Assembly passed legislation that restricts a locality’s ability to prohibit alternative septic systems. Thomas said this new legislation, coupled with advances in rainwater harvesting, would allow more people to build homes in an areas where traditional wells cannot be drilled.

 “That just opens up whole new areas of the county that we haven’t thought were really developable,” Thomas said.

In other feedback, Commissioner Linda Porterfield (Scottsville) said that she believed the interstate interchange development section of the Comprehensive Plan should be looked at in the future for an expansion of the growth area. Supervisor David Slutzky (Rio) replied that he would not be interested in opening up the growth area, but he understood the underlying objective.

Benish concluded the presentation by asking the Board of Supervisors for recommendations on future actions that could improve the Rural Areas Plan. The Board suggested that the County focus on a review of uses of land permitted in the rural areas, especially with church and home uses. They also suggested reconsidering the strategy for crossroads communities during the 5 year update of the Rural Areas section of the Comprehensive Plan in 2010. Finally, they pointed out the importance of encouraging conservation easements, as well as monitoring the easements in order to ultimately preserve the rural areas.

TIMELINE FOR PODCAST

00:00 David Benish presents information on Rural Areas Comprehensive Plan
02:25 Thomas asks a question about rate of use of clustering
04:55 Rooker asks question about the contribution from the ACE program
07:53 Mallek asks a question about alternatives
11:10 Slutzky comments on the slowed process
12:25 Thomas asks a question about recent requests from citizens
14:10 Rooker asks question on proposals on farm worker housings
14:20 Lee Catlin update on easement marketing program
22:40 Rooker asks a question about whether tax benefits has been sent out to the public
27:17 Benish outlines recommendations for next steps
28:55 Rooker asks if a uniform set of conditions will be made and about county ordinances for chemicals
37:00 Slutzky introduces discussion about whether the county can hold easements and Open Space classification
57:27 Thomas asks about alternative land use tax program
59:25 Thomas comments on areas of the county that will soon be developable
1:00:00 Porterfield suggests looking at interstate interchange development section
1:06:00 Slutzky introduces discussion on expanding the growth area

Charlottesville City Council considers paying to preserve Albemarle’s rural space

By Fania Gordon & Daniel Nairn
Charlottesville Tomorrow
Monday, April 6, 2009

Councilor David Brown

City Councilor David Brown has recently floated the idea of contributing funding to assist Albemarle County with their Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE) program.  During a Council budget work session on April 2, 2009, Brown expressed his view that the preservation of rural land in Albemarle County is also in the best interest of City residents, and noted that the County is struggling  to maintain current levels of funding in a difficult economy.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20090402-CC-Easements

“A part of what makes our community special is the natural area of the County,” said Brown.

The ACE program was established in Albemarle County in 2000 in order to help prevent the loss of rural land to development and is administered by the Albemarle County Department of Community Development.  Through the ACE program, landowners can sell a conservation easement to a public agency to be held in trust.  The agency will pay the landowner for the value of the easement and the landowner’s property taxes will be reduced due to the diminution in value of their property.

This year, funding for the ACE program has been reduced in response to the economic downturn. This year’s Capital Improvement Program budget had originally set aside $1.7 million for the program, but that allocation was revised downward to $950,000 for FY 2010.

Brown was quick to point out that his suggestion has no relation in his mind to the revenue-sharing agreement between the City and County. He does not see regional initiatives as the intent of those funds.

“We should talk about, either now or in the future, making a contribution to help expand and protect areas in the county permanently from not being developed,” said Brown.

Each of the Councilors responded with varying degrees of enthusiasm. Councilor Julian Taliaferro simply said he would have to think about it, and Councilor Holly Edwards wanted to learn more about the program. Councilor Satyendra Huja was the only member of Council to express outright disapproval. He excused himself for being the “bad guy,” but he said there were not enough revenues to cover the City’s own initiatives.

Mayor Dave Norris said he was open to a regional solution, but he had some reservations. He questioned whether reforming land use taxation, as was discussed by County’s Board of Supervisors  last year, could make up for the shortage of funding for the ACE program. He also expressed a desire to preserve open space within City boundaries. 

“If there is an initiative to work collaboratively to preserve valuable green space, I am absolutely in favor of pursuing it,” Norris said.

Experts on transfer of development rights programs identify success factors

A new study has been published in the Journal of the American Planning Association on Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) programs around the county. Rick Pruetz and Noah Standridge, two veteran TDR consultants and planning practitioners, ranked the top 20 programs in terms of their success in preserving land, drawing from a pool of 191 TDR programs that have been implemented across the nation. Each of these is matched up with a list of potential success factors that have been recommended by experts in the academic literature. Finally, these suggested success factors are prioritized in value, depending on how often they show up in the most successful programs.

While the idea of TDR may be fairly new to the Charlottesville-Albemarle community, the concept has been in practice for about 40 years. The rate of success has varied widely between communities. Pruetz’s and Standridge’s evaluation of the factors that differentiate the successful programs from those that have not been able to meet their stated goals could help local leaders determine whether Charlottesville-Albemarle has the right conditions and aspirations for a successful TDR program.

A Rural Area of Albemarle County

Here is the top ten list of success factors from the study:

1. Enough demand in the receiving area for bonuses. Whether in the form of extra density or other perks, developers have to truly want the bonuses that a purchase of development rights would confer.
   
2. The receiving area is customized to the community. The receiving area must have adequate infrastructure, political backing, and a clear designation. Ideally, the receiving area would be in a city or urban fringe, although a few communities that face urban pressures against development have created new town centers as receiving areas.
   
3. Strict sending area development regulations. “Strict regulations” are defined as prohibitions of densities greater than one unit per five acres, but some of the most successful programs have much stricter prohibitions than this. [Note: Albemarle County’s Rural Areas zoning ordinance currently allows one single-family residential unit for twenty-one acres in most cases.]
   
4. Few or no alternatives to TDR for achieving additional development. There is less demand for TDR in communities where developers believe they can receive a waiver to regulations without having to purchase development rights.
   
5. Market incentives: transfer ratios and conversion factors. The most successful programs have carefully matched the values of development rights in the selling area with the values they would be sold for in the receiving area. This is done by setting a favorable ratio for trading, so that each development right sold would be worth multiple rights to the buyer.
   
6. Ensuring that Developers will be able to use TDR. Many successful communities have rewritten zoning laws to allow by-right development with TDR, rather than making the buyer go through what could be a lengthy and expensive approval process. This drives demand by giving developers more certainty their projects can be completed on schedule.
   
7. Strong Public Support for Preservation. The most successful programs are in counties that already have publicly-funded land preservation measures in place, such as outright purchases of development rights.  [Note: Albemarle County has an Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE) program.]
   
8. Simplicity.  Programs that are easier to understand and implement find more support and participation.
   
9. TDR Promotion and facilitation. Citizens have to be well informed and regularly updated about the TDR program. This is usually accomplished with a high-quality website and an initial promotional push.
   
10. A TDR Bank. While only four of the top twenty communities established official TDR banks, these four programs have been remarkably successful. A TDR bank is an officially designated intermediary between buyers and sellers. It serves to facilitate trades, stabilized prices, and ensure continuous market activity.  [Note: Albemarle County has enabling legislation that would allow for the banking of development rights.]

Image from King County, Washington

Applying the success factors to the Charlottesville-Albemarle context

Pruetz and Standridge emphasize that not all ten of these traits are necessary to run a successful program. For example, Montgomery County, Maryland does not have a TDR bank and does not promise developers can use TDR by-right, yet they have managed to conserve an average of 1,851 acres per year since the inception of the program in 1980. Another highly successful program, New Jersey Pinelands, scores quite low on simplicity points. All of these factors reinforce each other in complex ways, and the diversity of individual characteristics of each community make any simplistic formula for success impossible.

However, there are some examples that relate to Charlottesville-Albemarle’s particular situation. Now that the City of Charlottesville has expressed an interest in TDR, the example of Boulder County, Colorado may prove illuminating. Their program, which began in 1989, has preserved 5,900 acres of land, and an expanded version was just ratified in the summer of 2008.  Boulder County has entered into intergovernmental agreements with six different incorporated towns in the county in order to find acceptable receiving areas for development rights.  The contracts give the cities the authority to set the receiving area within their boundaries, and they clarify the exact terms of a trade of development rights between the city and county.

King County, Washington, the TDR program with the best record in the country, also extends across political boundaries. There is potential for confusion, however, because each city government has its own policy of which development rights it is willing to accept. A municipal government, for instance, may only want to protect land within its own watershed. In 1998, The City of Seattle, located in King County, used TDR to allow developers to increase the number of stories on new buildings in a target neighborhood. Each additional story was priced at $120,000. Half of the cost went to purchasing three development rights from the county, and the other half was used for infrastructure improvements to the immediate vicinity of the development. Other creative arrangements between the two jurisdictions have been used since this initiative.

Albemarle County Supervisor Dennis Rooker (Jack Jouett) has said that in his own research he was not able to find any well-functioning TDR program that did not also include a down-zoning. The Pruetz and Standridge study confirm this finding. All of the top 12 TDR programs included strict land use controls on the sending area. Montgomery County down-zoned to 1 dwelling unit per 25 acres, a number they considered to be the minimum amount of land for a for a viable working farm. Boulder County has a base density of 1 dwelling unit per 35 acres, while King County maintains a more modest 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres limit. The researchers identified development restrictions like this as just short of essential for a TDR system to function. Many of the 191 programs with more permissive land use showed no TDR transactions at all.

Albemarle County’s Rural Areas zoning ordinance allows development of 1 single-family residence per 21 acres in most cases. The findings of Pruetz and Sandridge would already classify Albemarle’s rural development restrictions as “strict.” When the TDR concept was originally proposed by Supervisor David Slutzky (Rio) in 2006, he suggested Albemarle’s rural areas be down-zoned to one dwelling unit per 50 acres.

An August TDR stakeholder meeting at the Weldon Cooper Center

During the recent meetings on TDR facilitated by the Weldon-Cooper Center at the University of Virginia, stakeholders wrestled with the acceptability and practicality of further downzoning rural Albemarle.  Some rural property owners felt such a change, like the one approved in Albemarle’s “Great Rezoning” of 1980, would be a violation of their property rights.  By their fourth meeting, that key tenet of Slutzky’s TDR proposal was off the table.  At the time, the group discussed how large land parcels in Albemarle (over 50 acres) might best be protected with voluntary conservation easements. 

The most essential success factor, according the study, is whether enough development demand exists in the receiving area to prime the pumps of the market. This question may be especially pertinent in the current slow housing market.  King County had a thriving TDR trade until the housing bubble burst within the last two years, and since then there has been very little market activity. If developers are even hesitant to build to allowable standards, they are all the more unlikely to want to purchase the right to exceed those standards. Nevertheless, King County officials intend to simply wait out the slow economic climate and keep the TDR apparatus in place for the anticipated recovery. In many cases, TDR is intended as a long-term strategy that may have to weather the inevitable vicissitudes of the housing market.

Participants in the TDR stakeholder meetings also spent a considerable amount of time discussing what the exact constitution of the receiving area should be. Supervisor Slutzky’s original proposal suggested a 1% increase in the County’s designated growth area, but this proposal was abandoned during the stakeholder discussions. Many in the environmental community were resistant to growth area expansion, while others favored opening more of Albemarle’s rural area to development. The group eventually formed a consensus around setting the receiving area as the current designated growth area of the County and, if the City would agree, portions of Charlottesville.

Pruetz and Sandridge found a significant amount of variety in successful receiving areas, so they were hesitant to delineate specific Best Practices to follow. The criteria they did establish were that there had to be adequate infrastructure, or plans to extend the infrastructure necessary to accommodate higher density. There could not be any confusion about the boundaries, and the selected area should not draw political controversy. All of these factors have already figured heavily in the Albemarle-Charlottesville discussions.

While there are many models of good TDR programs to measure against, it is equally important to take account of the numerous TDR attempts that have incurred unnecessary costs, inspired needless controversy, or simply just faded away. Pruetz and Sandridge prove to be a helpful guide through the complex landscape of TDR policies around the country, another voice to add to the careful and inclusive conversation currently underway in the Albemarle-Charlottesville community.

Daniel Nairn