Charlottesville Tomorrow Blog

Land use taxation program reviewed in Albemarle

On May 14, 2008, the Lane Auditorium at the County Office Building was packed with residents interested in the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors’ discussion of the land use taxation program.  In their afternoon work session, the Board unanimously directed staff to begin planning for a revalidation program for property receiving the land use tax subsidy, a program which lowers the tax burden for land used for agriculture, open space and forestry.  Determining whether to make other adjustments to the program revealed a diversity of viewpoints on the Board.  Ultimately, by a 4-2 vote (Boyd and Dorrier against), the Supervisors decided to hold another work session this Summer on one potential change to the program.  All Board members made it clear that they want the land use taxation program to continue in Albemarle County.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast:Download 20080514-BOS-landuse.MP3

While they did not get an opportunity to speak to the board, the public in attendance did make their opinions known.  Despite being warned by Chairman Ken Boyd (Rivanna) to show respect for all Board member viewpoints, there was an occasional outburst of applause for any expression of support for the status quo that demonstrated that the majority of those in attendance had concerns about the Board’s potential tinkering with the program.



As of 2008, 59.8% of the land in Albemarle County is enrolled in land use, which includes parcels in both the rural area and growth areas (where undeveloped).  That results in deferred taxes of $18.78 million this year.  Land use is viewed by County officials as one strategic tool for protecting the County’s rural fields, farms, and forests.  However, some Supervisors and members of the public have encouraged the Board to take another look at the program to see if it is accomplishing that goal most effectively.

Revalidation is one way to address real and perceived abuses of the program and it has been considered by the Board, but not implemented, three times since 2001. Revalidation will require property owners to confirm on an annual basis that their property still meets the program’s requirements.  The Supervisors directed staff to bring back a formal revalidation proposal and sample documentation for consideration at a meeting in June 2008.

The lengthier discussion related to the merits of tinkering with the program to allow use value taxation only on parcels with the “open space” designation and which are located in agricultural/forestal districts.  The discussion ultimately focused on what is known as “Option 2” from the Board’s 2001 land use report.  This approach, as presented in 2001, would: 1) effectively eliminate land use from the County’s growth areas; 2) require property owners to place their land in an ag/forestal district and qualify for the open space designation; and 3) require a commitment from the property owner to not develop their land for 4-10 years, or permanently protect it with a conservation easement.  The Board did not get into an in-depth discussion of these details, and decided that work would be the focus of a future work session.

Supervisor David Slutzky (Rio) expressed a preference for having a citizen committee conduct an in-depth assessment of the land use program to bring recommendations back to the public and the Board.  “I definitely don’t want to eliminate the land use tax program, because I do think it provides a value to the community,” said Slutzky.  “For me, the intended purpose is to motivate property owners in the rural area to preserve the use of property in its natural state.” 

Slutzky suggested a committee could evaluate ideas like requiring conservation easements to access the land use program.  Slutzky said his concern about the current system was that some property owners, those who intend to sell their rural land for future development, were getting subsidized by making their “holding costs on the land cheaper on an annual basis.”

That proposal was vigorously opposed by Ken Boyd (Rivanna). “I don’t think that this is something we need to take this community through. I really do not think that we have a program that is broken.  I think we have a program that is very beneficial to preserving land use,” said Boyd. “Every time we start tweaking with these things we always end up with unintended consequences….I don’t want to drag this community through what I think would be a gut wrenching discussion of the pros and cons...” 

Ann Mallek (White Hall) said she preferred to see what the revalidation program revealed before making further adjustments.

Slutzky focused his remarks on encouraging the Board to determine if land use, as currently defined, was optimally designed to achieve rural protection goals.  Boyd reflected that the public has told him they do not want their land locked up in conservation easements, or other non-development commitments, in exchange for the tax break.

Lindsay Dorrier (Scottsville) said he thought land use was a popular program that has worked well and deserves continued support.

Borrowing from the suggestions of Sally Thomas (Samuel Miller), Dennis Rooker (Jack Jouett) made a motion to study further the Option 2 recommendation first brought to the Board in 2001.  A citizen committee would not be involved in this review.  He asked for a work session on that matter after which the Board would vote to determine whether to send the matter to the community for a public hearing.  Thomas said she was not committed to supporting the approach in Option 2, but that she thought it would be helpful to have the public focus their comments on this one item.

The motion passed 4-2 with Boyd and Dorrier voting against.  County Executive Bob Tucker did not give a date for the work session, but said staff would bring back information on land use revalidation at one of the Board’s meetings in June 2008.

Brian Wheeler

Farm Bureau hosts Albemarle County Supervisor Candidates

The campaign season for three Board of Supervisors races is officially underway, with the first candidates' forum of the year. Seven candidates for three seats were guests at the annual meeting of the Albemarle County Farm Bureau, held August 14, 2007 at Western Albemarle High School.

President Joe Jones joked with the crowd that he would have preferred to have booked a bluegrass band  to close out the annual meeting.

“However, the Board of Directors felt with the number of seats up for election this fall, that part of our responsibility as an organization is to educate our membership,” he said. “Part of that education is getting to know the candidates for the Board of Supervisors.”

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast

Download the transcript

Watch the video::

Candidates were asked three questions, each of which stemmed from a set of resolutions adopted by Farm Bureau members during the meeting prior to the forum. Their local government resolutions were as follows:

1. We oppose and county law which would have the effect of diminishing property value
2. We urge that no ordinances be created that infringe on an individual' right to farm
3. We support the transfer of development rights with no easements required
4. We oppose the timed release ("phasing") of division rights in any form, as well as clustering and "preservation trusts" which inhibit agricultural use of land
5. We support enforcement of land-use taxation regulations

The forum was moderated Mark Campbell, a field representative of the Virginia Farm Bureau. The format of the event did not include opening or closing statements and the. candidates were not given copies of the three questions in advance.

Question 1:
"Much discussion within the Board of Supervisors and in public has advocated "farmland preservation." What measures would you support to encourage and support the business and livelihood of those who continue to farm that land?"

All candidates supported the idea of dedicating county staff time to helping farmers' market their products.

Kevin Fletcher, independent candidate for the Scottsville District, said he suggested that Albemarle County farmers be connected with growers in surrounding counties to help share marketing strategies, especially in tapping in to the lucrative market of local restaurants. Lindsay Dorrier, incumbent in the Scottsville District, said he wanted to continue “an ongoing dialog” with area farmers. The other independent in the district, Denny King, said the County needs to do more to be “farm-friendly” given that 95 percent of the land is rural.

Marcia Joseph, Democratic candidate for the Rivanna District, told the crowd she thought it was an exciting time for local farms with increasing demand for Community Supported Agriculture and organic produce. As a resident of the rural area, she said preserving farmland was an important priority. “I really would much rather see cattle raised next door than the houses going up next door,” she said.

Ken Boyd, incumbent Rivanna Supervisor, responded to the question by expressing his philosophy of government - “government that regulates least regulates best.” He pointed out that the Board has reduced the tax rate twice in the past four years he has been a Supervisor. He said the county's farming liaison staff should help farmers find supplementary sources of income during hard times.

David Wyant, incumbent White Hall Supervisor, he supports the county's Acquisition of Conservation Easement programs as well as the land-use taxation program. His opponent, Ann Mallek, wants the county to remove obstacles to farm-sales, provide education on high-yield markets, and by linking retiring farmers with aspiring ones to encourage agricultural land to remain so. She echoed Joseph's comments that local farmers have an opportunity to tap into the local market with renewed attention on food safety.

Question 2:
Control of population growth has been cited as a basis for measures such as the transfer of development rights. Would you be willing to support compensating landowners for limiting further division of their real property without attaching easement restriction on the future use of the land so long as it remain ineligible for subdivision?

Ken Boyd said he was a “huge advocate of personal property rights” and that he has too many questions about transferable development rights (TDRs) before he could answer for sure. Boyd is skeptical that TDRs would generate enough of a market to be equitable for all residents, especially ifs downzoning of rural areas is part of that package. He said farmers whose families have been working County lands for generations can be trusted not to abuse programs designed to protect their farmland from development.

Joseph took issue with the notion that TDRs are designed to control population growth, and said that the County's population will likely continue to grow at a rate of 2 percent. “It's important to make sure that any easement placed on a piece of property does not hinder you from doing any agricultural use.”

Ann Mallek, a member of the Acquisition of Conservation Easements committee since 2000, said she needed more information on the question before she could answer. Her opponent David Wyant said he would not support attaching easements to rural land if the owners transferred their development rights.

Lindsay Dorrier related his personal experience with TDRs. “I know first hand about TDRs because my mother owns a 50 acre farm, and 2 years go she decided to get a conservation easement and works with the Virginia Outdoor Foundation to do it. The value of the property really did not diminish that much, but it allowed her children to get a tax credit to apply against our state income tax,” he said. “That has an easement restriction on it.”

Denny King said did not have enough information to take a position on the question. Kevin Fletcher said he was against TDRs if they expanded the county's growth area, but said he supports the ACE program as well as the Virginia Outdoor Foundation, two programs that support conservation easements.

Question 3:
What is your position on the land-use assessment program? What should be done to ensure compliance with the requirements for designation of land-use property?

All of the candidates expressed support for the current land use taxation program, but some said it was being abused.

Ann Mallek said farm land in production does not put a burden on the County in terms of requiring services like schools. But she said the program needs to be as “squeaky clean” as possible to prevent mistrust among urban residents of the county. David Wyant said that he did not think compliance enforcement was much of an issue.

Denny King said the County has not done a good job of policing the program. “I believe that there are people out there in our County who are enjoying land use taxation who don't qualify and have not earned that right,” he said. Kevin Fletcher agreed that the tax incentive was misused but said without the program, many people would not be able to stay in the County, but he suggested farmers file annual reports on what they produce. Lindsay Dorrier says land use taxation was enacted farmers, but that the program has not worked out as well as envisioned. He also said he did not see that it had been abused.

Marcia Joseph said it hurts her heart when she hears Albemarle County residents who live in the urban ring describe the land-use taxation program as “farmers not paying their fair share.” She says the County could not survive without its farmers. Ken Boyd said he relies on staff to police for abuse, but that he was unaware of widespread problems with the program.

A transcript of this candidate forum will be prepared by Charlottesville Tomorrow and added to this post in the near future.  Visit our Election Watch 2007 website for complete coverage of local elections.

Sean Tubbs