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

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.

Charlottesville Planning Commission considers ways to improve tree canopy initiative

By Connie Chang & Sean Tubbs
Charlottesville Tomorrow
Friday, August 28, 2009

Although the City has already surpassed its goal of having a tree canopy of 40%, the Charlottesville Planning Commission continues to debate ways to build upon that goal and further protect the City’s trees. Commissioners discussed the issue at a work session on August 25, 2009.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20090825-CPC-Tree-Canopy-Final

The City’s Department of Parks and Recreation created an Urban Forest Management Plan to help achieve the 40% goal, a key objective called for in the City’s 2007 Comprehensive Plan. The tree canopy initiative was one of seven priorities outlined during City Council’s retreat in September 2008. In April 2009, Mayor Dave Norris presented a “Proposal for a Greener Charlottesville” in order to increase the City’s tree canopy from 32% to 40% coverage.

However, Park and Trail Planner Chris Gensic revealed to Council on June 15, 2009, that analysis of aerial photographs of the City indicated that the tree canopy was already at 46%, but that not all neighborhoods and areas of the City were consistent.

Since then, City staff have further analyzed data on the City’s tree canopy coverage to zero in on specific neighborhoods and entrance corridors where the percentage could be increased. Staff investigated each neighborhood and compared them against American Forestry Standards for urban, suburban, and central business district areas. Staff provided the Planning Commission with maps showing tree canopy coverage based on areas such as schools, parks, and watersheds. For instance, Preston Avenue and West Main Street are particular areas where the canopy could be increased.

Staff has also been working with city arborist, Tim Hughes, to develop a “best management practice” manual for preserving and protecting trees during construction.

Neighborhood Planner Ebony Walden said the next step will involve determining areas where trees should be planted and noted that staff have looked at models from around the country to develop a manual for design standards.

Commissioner Bill Emory, who serves on the Urban Forest Management Plan committee, expressed concern that executing a tree canopy initiative of this magnitude may lead to an unfavorable outcome. He said the City commissioned a street tree plan in 1975, but it was never implemented. Emory emphasized the value of using tools such as Geographical Information Systems (GIS) and incorporating input from the community to make the urban forest management plan one that will work for the next twenty years.

In moving forward with the tree canopy initiative, Commissioners agreed that discrepancies among statistical figures will need to be addressed in order to determine the most effective planting locations. For example, within the Hydraulic Road entrance corridor, the percentage of canopy coverage seemed questionably high for an area composed mostly of pavement. There was also uncertainty as to whether calculations for other parcels within the City included street trees in the percentages generated. Once these figures are verified, the City will have a better picture of the areas of most concern and can carry on to the next step of the initiative.

TIMELINE FOR PODCAST:

01:00 – Neighborhood Planner Ebony Walden provides status update on tree canopy initiative
03:23 – Jason Pearson welcomes new Planning Commission members John Santoski and Kurt Keesecker
06:28 – Planning Manager Missy Creasy begins Planning Commission introductions
10:24 – Jason Pearson discusses work plan priorities
11:35 – Ebony Walden continues overview of tree canopy initiative
12:24 – Bill Emory provides comment
19:40 – Jason Pearson poses process-level questions to staff
20:03 – Ebony Walden responds to question
23:32 – Dan Rosensweig expresses concern over statistical numbers generated by staff
24:29 – Ebony Walden responds
24:45 – Planning staff member Nick Rogers provides comment
27:30 – Michael Osteen provides comment
29:48 – Jason Pearson provides comment
33:25 – Genevieve Keller poses question over examining projections on health of tree canopy
34:23 – Ebony Walden responds
35:20 – Bill Emory provides final comment

Forest Management Plan presented to Council; Updated data shows City already exceeds its tree canopy goal

Charlottesville Tomorrow
By Julia Glendening
Wednesday, June 17, 2009

On June 15, 2009, Brian Daly, Charlottesville’s Acting Parks and Recreation Director, and Chris Gensic, the Park and Trail Planner, presented the Urban Forest Management Plan to Charlottesville City Council. The plan would enhance and preserve forested areas in the City through monitoring existing trees, planting new trees, and improving public education about the benefits of urban forests. The 2007 Comprehensive Plan established a goal of 40% canopy coverage throughout the City. Gensic said the City has exceeded this overall goal, but some forested areas still need to be expanded in order to have consistent canopy coverage in all areas of the City. The Council approved of the Plan and said they looked forward to seeing how the program could improve Charlottesville’s urban forests.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20090615-urban-forest-plan

Download the draft of the Urban Forest Management Plan

This map was compiled using aerial photography

Gensic described past efforts of Parks and Recreation, such as a tree inventory, a parkland study of invasives, and a tree canopy study. In 2002, a street tree inventory began that recorded species and location of trees on public lands, which was followed up by another inventory in 2008. In 2007, Charlottesville received a Tree City USA designation, a program of the Arbor Day Foundation, recognizing the City’s urban forestry protection efforts. The University of Virginia also helped with forestry efforts: a tree canopy study done by a class in 2006 found the City to have 31-32% tree canopy coverage. However, a 2008 aerial photo analysis showed the City at 46% canopy coverage, exceeding the Comprehensive Plan goal of 40%. Gensic emphasized the Urban Forest Management Plan would help all neighborhoods reach the 40% goal.

“We have actually more tree canopy than buildings, roads, and parking lots combined within the city limits,” said Daly.

Daly stated a photo analysis would have to be done every three to four years to keep track of tree canopy change. He recommended the Council should adopt the plan and establish forest goals by district and zone. He said canopy goals and planting plans should be developed according to the type of area, such as urban, suburban, or entrance corridor.

Daly also presented six key elements of the Urban Forest Management Plan. The strategies included preserving and protecting existing forested areas by increasing land acquisition and specify detailed tree protection practices during construction. They aim to enhance and restore forest quality through the containment of invasives and the addition of trails. Forests will be expanded by aiming to exceed the tree canopy goal in every neighborhood. Trees will also be monitored to document their health and track the progress of the forests. There will be an increase in education and outreach with planting and volunteer projects. Finally, the plan will be sustained with codes and guides for citizens and developers.

Mayor Dave Norris commended Parks and Recreation on putting together the plan and said it demonstrated a great deal of detailed analysis. “I got a real sense from you tonight that this is just the beginning and you’re really committed to seeing this plan put into effect,” said Norris. At an April 2009 press conference, Norris outlined his specific priorities for a “Greener Charlottesville,” including an increase in tree canopy.

Brian Daly (left) and Chris Gensic (right) of Parks and Recreation

Councilor Satyendra Huja asked Daly if trees could be protected on private property. Daly responded that the most they could do was educate the property owner about how to properly care for and maintain trees. He also said part of the plan is to look at legal solutions for tree protection, possibly leading to new legislation.

Councilor David Brown reiterated this point and said he hoped Parks and Recreation could encourage private tree planting. Daly said there are grant opportunities to obtain trees for public distribution and he agreed the citizen must be educated. Brown questioned if the number of trees developers are required to plant should be pushed higher and recommended it as a topic to be looked at in the future.

Norris agreed requirements should be strengthened because he did not believe City Council could do as much to strengthen the volunteer aspect of urban forestry management. He also said he would like to see the City purchase more green space throughout city limits.

Colette Hall, the President of the North Downtown Neighborhood Association, spoke about the removal of trees in her area and proposed the possibility of a real estate tax rebate as a financial incentive to plant trees on private property.

“I don’t think there’s a month goes by where I don’t hear the sound of a tree being taken down,” Hall said. “Whatever education we need to do for our citizens, it’s not been done at least in the last 20 years because trees are being taken down at an alarming rate on private property.”

Norris agreed with the idea of a financial incentive and recommended Parks and Recreation look into a program for tree planting that is similar to the rebate programs for low flow toilets and rain barrels.

The Councilors made multiple suggestions for Parks and Recreation’s Urban Management Forestry Plan and stressed the importance of regulations on private property tree removal. Daly listened to all of their advice and Norris told him to keep City Council updated on the progress of the program.

TIMELINE FOR PODCAST

• 01:00 Norris introduces topic
• 01:10 Daly makes introductory comments
• 02:15 Gensic presents background information
• 10:55 Daly lists elements of plan
• 17:55 Norris admires plan
• 18:34 Huja asks about identifying trees and trees on private property
• 20:45 Taliaferro asks where the plan will be emphasized
• 21:35 Huja stresses importance of education
• 22:14 Brown asks about encouraging private planting
• 25:05 Norris comments on increasing requirements
• 26:50 Huja tells Daly to consider obtaining private donations

Dave Norris calls for a “Greener Charlottesville”

By Fania Gordon & Brian Wheeler
Charlottesville Tomorrow
Friday, April 24, 2009

Several days before the official kickoff of Earth Week, Charlottesville Mayor, Dave Norris (D), called for action to make Charlottesville greener both literally (by a “significant expansion of green space”) and figuratively (by promoting environmentally friendly features and practices).  On April 14, 2009, Norris presented his Proposal for a Greener Charlottesville at a press conference in Northeast Park.  Norris has held a series of media events related to his current re-election campaign for City Council.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20090414-Norris-Green

Norris’ proposal includes recommendations to:

• Increase the City’s tree canopy from 32% to 40% or more through public and private efforts.
• Encourage construction of green roofs by facilitating their construction through incentive programs, technical assistance and support.
• Convert “rivers and seas of barren asphalt” into landscaped green streets and green parking lots, and install more pocket parks and community gardens.
• Purchase and preserve green space and new park land while enhancing existing parks by planting more native species.

At their September 2008 retreat, City Council identified achieving a 40% tree canopy as one of seven major priorities for 2008-2010. Norris expressed frustration about how difficult it has been to actually realize the Council’s tree canopy objectives.  “We’ve been talking about that for at least two years, and I’m frankly a little frustrated we haven’t gotten to the point of taking action on it,” said Norris.  “We need to implement a bold plan of action,” Norris said.

Norris said City Council had not yet received an Urban Forestry Management Plan that was supposed to be completed by January 1, 2009, according to the City’s workplan priorities.  “We’ve been asking for it for many months, and we are told it is coming soon.” 

At the press conference, Norris emphasized that his proposed actions are not in opposition to urban-infill development within the City, explaining that they should be part of a larger infill strategy.  When asked about the possibility of converting the City owned surface parking lot on Water Street into a green space, Norris said he thought it would be more appropriately used for something else.
“That site presents an opportunity for very creative infill development that could include some green space,” said Norris.

Norris also touted the fact the recently adopted City budget included funds for the greening of Charlottesville.  “This is the first year, in many many years, that the city in the FY 2010 budget has included a small amount of money, $100,000 for the purchase and preservation of green space,” said Norris.  “I’d like to see us expand that amount in the years to come.”

While Norris did not specify exactly which paved areas he would like to see converted to green space he suggested ways that existing roads and parking lots could be made greener. These suggestions included increasing parking lot plantings, installing storm-water runoff mitigation features and landscaping streets.  Norris expressed regret about the fact that the City is going to give up so many acres of green space in McIntire Park for the construction of the Meadowcreek Parkway. “I think it’s the wrong direction for us to proceed,” he said.

When asked if the trees to be removed for expansion of the Ragged Mountain Reservoir would be considered in of the City’s calculation of its tree cover, Norris said they would not because they lie outside of the City limits even though the land is technically owned by the City.  However, Norris did say that he felt this question was important as those trees contribute to the overall environmental health of the area and their removal would represent the largest clear-cut on City owned property in a long time.  “We haven’t done a very good job at balancing our talk with our plan of action,” said Norris.  

While 180 acres of trees are proposed to be cleared at the Ragged Mountain Reservoir site, the environmental mitigation plan concept for the 50-year community water supply has as a key element the preservation and enhancement of streams around the Buck Mountain property in Free Union, VA, including the replanting of some 200 acres of riparian corridor.

Norris concluded the press conference saying that the key to successfully greening the City will be community engagement.  “The city can and should be a part of it, but really what it’s going to take is engaging schoolchildren, garden clubs, neighborhood associations, our development partners, the whole community to identify opportunities,” Norris said.