County Planning Commission work session hears objections from wine growers

By Tarpley Ashworth
Charlottesville Tomorrow
Thursday, November 12, 2009

The Albemarle County Planning Commission held an informal work session on Tuesday, November 10th to discuss how best to bring local zoning regulations in line with an updated state law concerning farm wineries. The Virginia General Assembly added language in 2009 to an existing farm winery law which mandated that localities take into account the potential economic effects on the wineries when considering regulation. The state also required that farm wineries be permitted to engage in activities that are “usual” and “customary” for wineries, such as tastings and hosting wedding receptions. Ever since this provision was revised, County staff has been working on changing relevant regulations to reflect these requirements.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: 20091111-APA-Farm-Wineries

Planning Commissioners, farmers and winery owners listen as the proposed ordinance is discussed

Wayne Cilimberg, the County’s Director of Planning, proposed an amendment to Albemarle’s zoning rules which he said would clear up confusion while also following state law. His proposal defines that “customary” winery activities include fruit harvesting, the sale and shipment of wine, hosting private gatherings and festivals, and tastings and tours among other activities. But the draft regulation requires that all of these activities take place during normal business hours, which is defined by the County as being between 9:00 am and 6:00 pm, and be limited to no more than 50 people.

The draft regulation would allow a farm winery to obtain a one-time zoning ordinance which allows them to operate outside normal business hours and at a maximum capacity of 200 persons. If wineries wish to host events having more than 200 people, the draft ordinance would require them to obtain a special use permit. The proposed rule change also expressly prohibits wineries from opening restaurants on their property.

Amelia McCulley, the County’s Zoning Administrator, told winery representatives that the application for a “zoning clearance” was fairly simple and would need to be completed only once by the winery. The application includes questions about the proposed use, frequency and duration of use, parking, sanitation, and temporary structures. The application fee is currently $35.

Cilimberg said that the application was necessary since it concerned events which “may make substantial impact” to the surrounding community, including neighbors and drivers. He also noted that these regulations were thorough because they applied to rural areas within the county, which are more protected than development areas.

Commissioner Calvin Morris (Rivanna), who chaired the work session, questioned the exclusion of restaurants on farm winery property.

“It seems that we’re almost providing restaurant facilities, but not permitting them,” said Morris, referring to the fact that catering, picnics, and appetizers are permitted in the draft.

Cilimberg responded that the restaurant prohibition was based on a distinction between activities which are accessories to wineries, and those which aren’t. He said more casual food like appetizers were considered an accessory, but that a separate commercial operation, such as a restaurant, was not.

Matt Conrad of the Virginia Wine Council, who spoke during the work session, called the draft legislation a “paradox” since the state had just issued, in his words, a “burden-shifting paradigm” which placed the burden on the County to prove that such regulation was necessary. Conrad took issue specifically with restricting farm wineries’ hours of operations, particularly since there was no mention of such restriction in state legislation.

“We know that the folks in Albemarle County are very reasonable. But there may come a time where we can’t always be certain who will be at the helm in the county,” said Conrad. “So we want assurances in this ordinance that the things that the General Assembly has allowed us to do will be permitted without obstruction.”

David King of King Family Vineyards told the group about his personal experiences of trying to get a special use permit from the County for his vineyard in 2007. He said the conditions of the permit would have “put us out of business” and so he helped pursue the new legislation.

Charlotte Shelton of Albemarle CiderWorks echoed previous concerns about the restricted operating hours. She said it was extremely hard to accurately predict the number of visitors for a certain event and that normal business hours should, at the very least, be defined by season since this influences turnout.

Neil Williamson of the Free Enterprise Forum called for the regulations to be tabled indefinitely because they would disrupt farm wineries’ customer traffic and profit.

“I think this should be a dead document,” said Williamson. “I would hate to see the County spend what limited funds it has to pursue a chapter that is only going to be mired in litigation in the future.”

Morgan Butler, an attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center, was the only public speaker to defend the proposed regulations.

“The tricky balance is making sure the uses allowed are supplemental to the winery,” said Butler. “[Some] could have a substantial impact of public welfare.”

Greg Kamptner, the Deputy County Attorney, said that the county has struggled with determining what uses qualify as “usual” and “customary” since the state did not define these terms in the farm winery legislation. He also said that the County determined the normal hours of operation by surveying all the farm wineries in the county for their specific hours. He reported that the 9 am to 6 pm timeframe was actually more broad than any winery’s actual hours of operation.

Cilimberg clarified that the 50 person limit only applied to wineries’ supplemental activities and not to their regular business. He also said that the County was open to rethinking the limit on visitors and hours of operation and stated that the final decision about the details would be made by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors.

Morris ended the meeting by acknowledging that the input was “very informative” in helping the Commission formulate the regulations. Cilimberg said that planners would take the discussion into consideration as they finalize the proposal for future review by the Planning Commission.

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

Senior Statesmen of Virginia hold forum for all six Albemarle Supervisor candidates

By Sean Tubbs
Charlottesville Tomorrow
Friday, October 16, 2009

All six candidates for the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors participated in a forum sponsored by the non-partisan Senior Statesmen of Virginia on October 15, 2009. Samuel Miller District candidates Madison Cummings (D), John Lowry (I) and Duane Snow (R) sat alongside Rio District candidates David Slutzky (D) and Rodney Thomas (R). Jack Jouett District incumbent Dennis Rooker (I) was also on the panel even though he faces no opposition.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20091014-SSV-Forum

After each candidate gave a five-minute opening statement, they answered questions from the audience about land use taxation, the role of chain stores in Albemarle’s economic plan and cooperation with the City of Charlottesville. Each candidate was also given a chance to make a closing “wrap-up” statement.

The opening statements offered a chance for each candidate to explain why he is running. Rooker pointed to many achievements the Board of Supervisors has made during the past eight years, including maintaining a AAA bond rating.  Thomas said his time as Chairman of the Albemarle County Planning Commission prepared him to serve as a Supervisor. Slutzky said he was a hard worker who would put in the time to continue to serve Albemarle County. Snow said he was qualified for the job by his lifelong residency as well as his experience as a business owner. Lowry called for the creation of an economic development department. Cummings pointed to his service on the School Board as a reason why he should be elected.

The following are highlighted responses from the five questions asked by the audience.

Question 1:  What action would you take to enable restaurant chains such as the Olive Garden and Cracker Barrel, as well as big box stores such as the Home Depot, to open in Albemarle County?

Duane Snow (R-Samuel Miller): “We make it almost impossible for them to come here because we demand so much from them…”

Dennis Rooker (I-Jack Jouett): “We do not choose which businesses want to come here. We provide adequate land uses for businesses to locate here. We have today about 3 million square feet of commercial space that is approved in the County but has not been built out.”

Rodney Thomas (R-Rio): “The [County’s] maximum footprint is 65,000 square feet… I think that probably should be doctored a little bit to let the bigger stores come in…”

David Slutzky (D-Rio): “The Department of Conservation and Recreation issues some draft regulations that were ruthless in protecting the bay, but they also were going to have a profound chilling effect on the business climate in the Commonwealth in Virginia…I came up with an alternative proposal… They’ll be finalized and signed by the Governor later this year.”

John Lowry (I-Samuel Miller): “Businesses have to want to come here. Is the County perceived as being friendly to business? We need to have an economic development office to invite businesses here.”

Madison Cummings: (D-Samuel Miller): “If we’re not welcoming to businesses… we need to be working on that… I do hear occasionally that there are County employees who are less welcoming and sometimes rude. I would hope that we would work on that.”

Question 2: How would you join with Charlottesville government to help in making both areas save taxpayer dollars?

Rodney Thomas (R-Rio):”I would plan a meeting to do something with the revenue sharing… Right now we have no say over that money that is spent inside of the City of Charlottesville. $18.8 million is what the check is going to be for in January.”

Dennis Rooker (I-Jack Jouett): “City and County cooperate on many, many things… We can always do more.”

David Slutzky (D-Rio): “The City runs the bus system… the bus system is very downtown-centric yet 80% of our commercial activity is along [U.S. 29]. I would like to see us enter into a collaboration with the City to form a Regional Transit Authority.”

Duane Snow (R-Samuel Miller): “We have to be careful that in the effort to collaborate, [that] we don’t get carried away with spending…”

John Lowry (I-Samuel Miller): “We have a City operating independently inside the County and logically the two really ought to be together completely so we wouldn’t have an overlap in the school system and police, fire and rescue…”

Madison Cummings (D-Samuel Miller): “I was on the School Board in the late 90’s and I approached the superintendent and [asked] how we could cut this dog.gone transportation budget? I tried to work and see if maybe we could meld at least in the urban area the two transportation systems for the schools… One opportunity maybe we could consider again.”

Question 3: The Daily Progress recently reported that housing prices have dropped by 20%. How should the Board respond to lower real estate assessments?

Duane Snow (R-Samuel Miller): “There’s nothing we can do about raising those property values back up until the economy improves. But in the meantime you can’t tell someone that is already struggling to make ends meet that we have to raise taxes… Cut the waste in the County and then from there we can make decisions. Do you realize the County has never had a zero-based budget?”

Dennis Rooker (I-Jack Jouett): “The County actually did try zero-based budgeting back in 1990 and then they went away from it… What we do today is what I would call a modified zero-based budget. We do look at every line item in the budget to determine whether or not it’s something we need to fund… Actual full-fledged zero-based budgeting is an incredibly time-demanding… At the end of the day it was abandoned because it took up a lot of time that could have been spent elsewhere… Before we raise rates, we always need to look for efficiencies and make sure we are getting the most out of the revenues we currently have.”

John Lowry (I-Samuel Miller): “Relying on property taxes alone is unsustainable.. You could have $20 million from commercial taxes over time that could be a replacement…It’s not a crisis of wasteful spending. We have a crisis of not having enough revenues to provide the services we like.”

David Slutzky (D-Rio): “You’ve got to minimize your expenses and you’ve got to increase your revenues… I voted against the turf fields that were going to be put in the schools…I find it frustrating in a campaign process where candidates sit there and say they’re going to cut the waste… if we’re interested in zero-based budgeting, that must mean that these candidates have already looked at the budget and have at least some suggestions of what waste they want to see cut, and I haven’t been hearing that so far.”

Rodney Thomas (R-Rio): “There’s a lot of ways that you can cut. You want to cut the waste out of the budget… I think it’s going to be obvious as to where we need to make the cuts when we get into the budget, and cut the wasteful spending.”

Madison Cummings (D-Samuel Miller): “We perhaps are at zero-based budgeting now whether we want to be or not. We’re at least at baseline budgeting because of the number of folks [in County government] that are frozen.”

Question 4: “What negative results would occur if land use taxation were to be eliminated?”

Dennis Rooker (I-Jack Jouett):”There probably are some properties out there that have been getting a benefit for that tax break that might not qualify, and we want to make certain that the program is only going to those who meet the definition... We decided to go with revalidation to see where that would lead us.”

David Slutzky (D-Rio): “I can’t imagine our board would eliminate the program. I certainly wouldn’t support it… It provides immense value in that it does create an incentive for rural lands to be protected for a period of time…”

Duane Snow (R-Samuel Miller): “I don’t think it’s a matter of taxes. It’s a matter of personal property rights… The people that are living in the County that are getting a tax break on their property, most of them don’t use the services that those in the urban ring use.”

Rodney Thomas (R-Rio): “Farmers would not be able to afford to run their farms if the program was done away with… I don’t know of any land use participant that is a land speculator… I can’t imagine anyone in the County doing that.”

Madison Cummings (D-Samuel Miller):”It’s a sacred duty to maintain the rural areas of Albemarle County and other areas. Land use taxation relief helps to do that.”

John Lowry (I-Samuel Miller): “The agriculture industry would completely go away. The timber industry would disappear, too.”

Question 5: What are your views on the bypass around Charlottesville?

Madison Cummings (D-Samuel Miller): “In the 70’s, they were talking about the western bypass. We talked about it and I said, why wouldn’t they talk about going down U.S. 15? What doesn’t make sense about that? That was before Historic Green Springs set itself as a historical area, so that makes it more difficult now… The western bypass, the topography there is not attractive. It’s terribly expensive…I think we need to drive a stake through its heart permanently.”

John Lowry (I-Samuel Miller):”I’d like to speak on the seriousness ofn the ability to fund road improvements in our area. We have a problem of flow right now. We have a state that is not sending money to our community… It’s not a lack of planning that we’re missing. We’re missing a lack of funding… It’s not the bypass that’s so important. We need lanes connecting Hydraulic to the traditional 29 bypass. We need the rural road program to be funded.”

Duane Snow (R-Samuel Miller): “They tell us that roughly 10% of the traffic we have in this area goes straight through the 29 area and out of the County. They say that in building a bypass we’re building it mainly for that 10%. What we really need is to make it easier for the 90% that are moving around inside of the city to get around more effectively.”

Rodney Thomas (R-Rio): “I really like the [Western] bypass… I thought it was a very good internal road that we needed… If the bypass had been put in, it would have eliminated a high percentage of the cars blocking or backing up at the 250 bypass interchange…”

Dennis Rooker (I-Jack Jouett): “There is no funding for transportation in the state… Somebody needs to solve the transportation funding problem… Hillsdale needs to be built… We know we need to add a lane on 29 from Hydraulic Road south to the 250 Bypass along with an extra ramp at Best Buy… we don’t have any money for it.”

David Slutzky (D-Rio): “I strongly agree with my opponent Rodney that we cannot let 29 become an expressway, and I think that was one of the original reasons why the community looked at the so-called Western Bypass… If the Board is going to be deliver anything out of Places29, it is that parallel road that is Berkmar that’s been described already.”

TIMELINE FOR PODCAST:

• 01:00 – Introduction from David Perkins of the Senior Statesmen of Virginia
• 03:30 – Opening statement from Dennis Rooker (I-Jack Jouett)
• 09:00 - Opening statement from Rodney Thomas (R-Rio)
• 10:30 - Opening statement from David Slutzky (D-Rio)
• 16:00 - Opening statement from Duane Snow (R-Samuel Miller)
• 20:15 - Opening statement from John Lowry (I-Samuel Miller)
• 25:45 – Opening statement from Madison Cummings (D-Samuel Miller)
• 31:20 – Question #1
• 44:00 – Question #2
• 56:30 - Question #3
• 1:10:30 - Question #4
• 1:26:00 - Question #5
• 1:39:00 - Wrap-up comment from Madison Cummings (D-Samuel Miller):
• 1:42:00 - Wrap-up comment from John Lowry (I-Samuel Miller)
• 1:44:40 - Wrap-up comment from Duane Snow (R-Samuel Miller)
• 1:47:15 - Wrap-up comment from Rodney Thomas (R-Rio)
• 1:50:00 - Wrap-up comment from Dennis Rooker (I-Jack Jouett)
• 1:53:30 - Wrap-up comment from David Slutzky (D-Rio)

Rio District Candidates Forum

On October 1, 2009, the two candidates vying for the Rio District of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors met at a Candidates Forum sponsored by Charlottesville Tomorrow and the Free Enterprise Forum. Democrat David Slutzky and Republican Rodney Thomas answered ten questions on land use, transportation, and growth in the County. The candidates also answered several questions submitted by members of the audience. The event, held at Hollymead Elementary School, was co-moderated by Neil Williamson of the Free Enterprise Forum and Brian Wheeler of Charlottesville Tomorrow.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20091001-CT-FEF-Rio-Forum

WATCH THE VIDEO:

Rio District Candidates Forum from Charlottesville Tomorrow on Vimeo.

QUESTIONS:

Question 1:
According to the Albemarle County Strategic Plan, “the County desires to maintain a strong, sustainable economy, increase business activity in the urban cores of development areas, and ensure all citizens of the County are able to participate fully in a vibrant economy.” How would you assess Albemarle’s economic condition today? As a Supervisor, what specific strategies would you pursue to generate new jobs and economic vitality? What is your vision for the county addressing economic development opportunities?

Question 2:
How would you assess Albemarle County’s growth management strategies? What other steps would you advocate be taken to discourage development in the rural countryside and encourage development in the growth areas? Are the existing incentives adequate?

Question 3:
Should we start the planning process over on the fifty-year community water supply plan? Why or why not?

Question 4:
Albemarle County has expectations for the development community to build or pay for affordable living choices in new developments. Do you agree with that approach? How do you believe the County should address the need for not just affordable housing, but also workforce housing?

Question 5:
The Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission have both held work sessions on the transportation elements of the Places29 Master Plan. If there is an opportunity to receive a significant developer proffer related to Berkmar Drive Extended in exchange for an expansion of the County’s designated growth area, should that be pursued as part of the Places29 Master Plan?

Question 6:
Do you support the proposed grade separated interchanges on Route 29 as major components of the Places29 master plan? Why or why not?

Question 7:
Do you agree with continuation of the current land use tax program in the rural areas and with the revalidation process that was recently initiated by the BOS? Why or why not?

Question 8:
How do we ensure the community infrastructure—roads, sidewalks, fire/rescue facilities, libraries, etc.—is in place to support our current population, new development and redevelopment in our designated growth areas? To what degree should this infrastructure be funded by the real estate property tax, a gas tax, developer proffers, or new service districts?

Question 9:
An emotional issue that has divided the community is before the Board of Supervisors. How should an elected official balance citizen input, staff input, and the goal of making decisions that are in the best interests of the community as a whole?

Question 10:
How should we measure local government’s effectiveness on its strategic plan?

Audience question 1:
Both candidates have been in elected or appointed positions in Albemarle County. What letter grade would you give your constituent service from that period and how do you plan to improve it if you are elected?

Audience question 2:
With 60% of the County's budget going towards education, how do you propose ensuring Albemarle provides a quality education for its children that attracts high-paying jobs to the area? Do you plan on cutting education funds to balance the budget?

Audience question 3:
It seems like we've seen nothing but tax increases from the board. When do you see these taxes increases stopping?

Audience question 4:
What is your position on public transportation, in particular, cooperation with Charlottesville Transit Service and University Transit? What are your feelings on a Regional Transit Authority? How did you get here tonight?

Audience question 5:
What is your position on the County's current cash proffer system?

Audience question 6:
The Jefferson-Madison Regional Library has had a 30% increase in visitors over the past year and a more than 6% increase in circulation at the three Albemarle locations, but also was level-funded in this year's budget. Do you intend to increase funding to support increased use?

Audience question 7:
Give us your general perspective on balancing development and the environment in Albemarle County?

TIMELINE FOR PODCAST:

• 01:00 - Opening introduction from Brian Wheeler of Charlottesville Tomorrow
• 01:45 - Rules are read by Neil Williamson of the Free Enterprise Forum
• 03:20 - Question 1
• 08:30 - Question 2
• 12:40 - Question 3
• 16:30 - Question 4
• 19:15 - Question 5
• 24:30 - Question 6
• 27:40 - Question 7
• 31:00 - Question 8
• 34:30 - Question 9
• 38:40 - Question 10
• 43:00 - Audience question 1
  
• 47:45 - Audience question 2
• 52:00 - Audience question 3
• 55:40 - Audience question 4
• 1:00:30 - Audience question 5
• 1:04:20 - Audience question 6 
• 1:08:00 - Audience question 7
• 1:12:30 - Rodney Thomas's closing statement
• 1:14:40 - David Slutzky's closing statement

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.

Supervisors seek zoning flexibility to allow for more farm stands

By Sean Tubbs
Charlottesville Tomorrow
Thursday, September 3, 2009

For the past nine years, Albemarle County farmer Nathan Yoder has sold produce on Thursday afternoons at a stand at the corner of Free Union Road and Garth Road.  Someone complained to County’s zoning officials about the stand, triggering an investigation. While Yoder has permission from the property owner, technically he is violating the zoning code because he does not own the land on which he’s selling his goods. The County is allowing him to continue operations through the end of this season.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20090902-BOS-Farmers-Market

Ann Mallek (White Hall) brought the matter up at the Board of Supervisor’s meeting on September 2, 2009. She wants County staff to investigate ways to change the zoning ordinance to make it easier for farmers to sell their goods.

“If we’re successful in our local food movement and we are successful in encouraging new faces in agriculture, I’m very hopeful we’ll have many more opportunities for our local consumers to buy directly from farmers,” Mallek said.

Amelia McCulley, the County’s Director of Zoning, said a farmer is authorized to sell goods from their own property, and also on land that is zoned for commercial uses. However, there is nothing in the zoning ordinance that allows for a farmer to sell on land he or she does not own.

Supervisor David Slutzky (Rio) asked County staff to expedite the study so that farmers across the County could have an answer before next spring.

Wayne Cilimberg, the County’s Director of Planning, said that staff is currently working on other issues, and work on amendments to the zoning code have been put on hold. There are currently several frozen positions in the department, including a rural areas planner position that has never been filled. He said he would try to get the matter before the Board in time for next year, but he could not make a guarantee.

White Hall resident Bob Rash asked a series of questions during the public comment period to help shape the work of County staff.

“How can we effectively have a farmer’s market without violating the law?” Rash asked. “Are all farmers in violation if they sell off their property? But most farmers do sell off their property because their farms exist in rural areas where there is very little pedestrian  or vehicle traffic. Can other farmers join one farmer who has produce to sell and his farm is on a road where he feels there is sufficient traffic to generate the business they need? Can we get a special use permit if we can’t resolve these issues?”

When reached by phone by Charlottesville Tomorrow, Yoder was busy selling basil, cookies and other products. He dealt with four customers in the span of a five-minute phone call.

“I don’t know that we’ll be able to sell from here next year, but we hope to find a way that is mutually satisfactory,” Yoder said.

County residents getting land use tax break are urged to send in revalidation forms as deadline looms

By Sean Tubbs
Charlottesville Tomorrow
Friday, August 14, 2009

Albemarle County landowners with property in the land use taxation program have less than three weeks to file their new revalidation forms. As of today, less than half of the participants have returned their paperwork according to County Assessor Bob Willingham.

After September 1, 2009, the County will charge a $125 late fee to process the revalidation forms documenting that a property still qualifies for the program.  If a landowner has not returned the revalidation forms by December 5, 2009, they will face the possibility of being removed from the land use taxation program and subject to paying “roll back” taxes. In that scenario, the landowner would have to pay real estate property taxes at the fair market value for the previous five years.

Last October, the Board of Supervisors voted to require the revalidation process as a way of answering critics who charged the program was being abused by property owners who were not actually using their land for agricultural, open space, or forestry purposes. The County has never previously required participating landowners to revalidate their property. The program has been in place since 1973.

In an interview with Charlottesville Tomorrow, Willingham said he is not surprised that a majority of the program’s participants have not yet complied.

 “From my experience, it’s kind of typical that people receive a form from the government and don’t realize the importance of filing it,” Willingham said. “Some people forget it. Some people ignore it.”

If those people continue to ignore the program after the cut-off date, their property will be assessed in January 2010 at fair market rates. If they do not submit a reapplication to join the land use taxation program, their property will be subject to the roll-back taxes.

Approximately 68% of the County’s land is in land use taxation, according to Willingham. He said the County receives $19 million less in tax dollars then it would if the program was not in place. There are 4,927 parcels of land participating in the program.

Willingham predicts that as many as 10 percent of participants will not comply with revalidation and will be removed from the program.

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