Board of Supervisors Regular Second Meeting   8/20/2025

All right.

With Supervisor Galloway having entered the room, I am pleased to call to order this meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors on the 20th of August at 1 p.m.

in Lane Auditorium back to our office building.

I'd like to note that this we have, I'll say this slowly, Supervisor Pruitt of the Scottsville District, Supervisor Bea LaPisto-Kirtley of the Rivanna District,

District, Supervisor Ann Mallek of the White Hall District, Supervisor Diantha McKeel of the Jack Jouett District, and Supervisor Ned Gallaway of the Rio District, and myself, Jim Andrews, representing the Samuel Miller District, Quorum is present.

We're also joined by our County Executive, Mr. Jeff Richardson, our County Attorney, Mr. Andy Herrick, our Clerk, Ms.

Claudette Borgerson, and Senior Deputy Clerk, Mr. Travis Morris.

Also, let me please welcome Albemarle County Police Officer present, Master Police Officer Dana Reeves, Senior Police Officer David Sprouse.

Thank you for your service today and every day on behalf of all of the people in Albemarle.

Board, our first action, of course, is to adopt the final agenda.

I would like to make a couple notes, though, before doing so.

First, with respect to item 17, while it will remain on the agenda, our expectation is that the motion will be to defer to November 5th, which is date certain, but we'll still have, if anyone comes to speak, a public hearing to discuss it.

But there's action on that one.

And then we add it to the end of the agenda as item 19, a discussion regarding an ordinance to control running bamboo at the request of one of the supervisors.

And with those notes, do we have a motion to adopt the final agenda?

So moved.

Second.

We have a motion from Supervisor Malek, second from Supervisor McKeel.

Ms.

LaPisto-Kirtley?

Aye.

Ms.

Mallek?

Yes.

Ms.

McKeel?

Yes.

Yes.

So, Board, first item, of course, is announcements from Board members, and we will start.

Is ready?

I have no announcements.

I just want

My thoughts are with the folks of the incident that happened in Glenmore yesterday.

That was horrendous news.

I just don't even really have it put together what to say other than to say that, I mean, for that whole community, it's just devastating beyond just the owner.

Thank you.

Yes.

I'm hoping that we're able to get some assistance to that entire neighborhood somehow.

I did attend the celebration for Graham Page, who served on the Board of Education for, what was it, Diantha, 10 years?

Yeah.

And I know that Supervisor Pruitt was there also.

It was a nice celebration celebrating, frankly, someone's devotion to public service.

And that was very much appreciated.

And our EDA meeting yesterday went very well.

Lots of things coming up and coming up in our agenda, too.

Supervisor Mallek.

Yesterday was really well attended and the content was excellent for the Rivanna River Basin Commission.

There was the quarterly meeting and Justin Williams from the Department of Environmental Quality provided criteria and extra details about counties who choose to adopt parts of the Chesapeake Bay rules, the guidance that the agency provides, and all sorts of learning modules and training

on the DEQ website.

So when I get more information and links, I will share those with the board and for the minutes.

Also, the Robanna River Basin Commission Conference will be Wednesday, September 24, 930 to 3 or so at the Center at Belvedere.

A breakfast lunch will be provided, and registration emails and blasts are out.

and one can go to the River Basin Commission webpage to get more information or contact me and I will link you up.

Yes, just a couple of items.

Once again, I'm reminding everyone that the Charlottesville Albemarle branch of the NAACP is having their Freedom Fund Banquet on Friday, September the 19th.

The banquet this year is at the Omni, and tickets are available now.

And I would encourage everybody to go online and buy a ticket.

It's a fun event, and it's a good cause.

And so you just look up Albemarle Charlottesville NAACP

Freedom Fund Banquet.

So with that, let me go to the next item.

I feel like I'm a day late and a dime short on this, but we didn't have a meeting last week for the timing.

But I want to just recognize that President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed into law the Social Security Act on August the 14th of 1935.

It guaranteed an income for the unemployed and retirees and FDR recommended Congress for what he considered to be a patriotic act.

He hoped that the act would prevent senior citizens from ending up impoverished.

Although it was initially created to combat unemployment, Social Security now functions primarily as a powerful safety net for retirees and the disabled and provides death benefits to taxpayer dependents.

It has certainly remained popular and really unchanged since 1935.

And I will say that one note, by 1930, the United States was one of the few industrialized countries without any national security, social security system.

So he was trying to catch us up with many of the other industrialized countries.

And a little historic note.

which I didn't know about until I started looking into this.

Roosevelt established the Committee on Economic Security in 1934, and he appointed Francis Perkins, who he had also appointed as Secretary of Labor, to chair the committee.

She was the primary person who recommended the Social Security Act to President Franklin D. Roosevelt, so we can thank a woman as well as a Democratic president for this particular act.

And with that, I will let the next supervisor go.

Thank you.

So a few things, two on kind of more dour notes.

In the south side of the county, missing from his home in Secretary Sands, Lawrence Thomas has not been found yet.

He is an 80-year-old man.

living with dementia.

He is a small build, 5'5", 130 pounds.

He is expected to be seen somewhere in the south side of the county, including places like Alberine, Scottsville, North Garden.

So keep your eyes out for this man who would like to be reconnected with his family.

And also like my peers I've Had my heart with the Glenmore community and the really shocking home explosion that occurred late last night.

I've called quite a few people who live there in this community about kind of the I mean the literal and emotional shock that has gone with that And my heart sort of course with the the immediate victims and the people who are displaced on a

Brighter note, happy first day of school.

This is the first day of school in Albemarle County.

You're looking at me like I'm wrong.

Last week.

Oh, yeah.

Happy first day of school last week.

Jesus.

Sorry.

It was the first day of school at Peabody, and that's what I was thinking because they were right in front of my house.

With this comes, of course, a lot of changes in people's individual schedules, and most notably, a lot of changes in morning traffic.

So please be mindful of that community and be patient and try and model what we would like our young children who are also commuting to work in the morning.

Model the behaviors that you would like them to have and be careful because some folks walk to school.

Additionally, coming up this Friday is yet another iteration of Fridays on the Canal in Scottsville.

This is the free summer concert series that is going to be starting I believe at five down at the outdoor museum.

The performing band will be the Valley Street Drifters, who I don't know anything about, but from context clues I'm going to assume are a local act.

And finally, this is a bit further out, but seize the day, put it on your calendar for the 21st of September, Walnut Creek at noon to three.

This is an event honoring vets and service members and their families that we do every year at Walnut Creek and it's a good time for all.

Thank you.

Also, my heart goes out to those in Glenmore.

It'll probably come up later, which is why I haven't heard anything yet about it.

But I believe that there is a big meeting right here tomorrow, 6 to 8 PM in Lane Auditorium, that will be AC44's community check-in, unveiling our draft comprehensive plan.

There's also an online option.

And so I think it's really important for us to just get the word out that there's one big community meeting about the final draft.

We hope that close to the end a fully put together draft of AC44.

And then, as has been my habit, thanks to Supervisor McKeel for actually giving me a crib sheet for it, but it's the fall and fall cleanup days at Rivanna.

Solid Waste Authority are coming at the Solid Waste and Recycling Center starting Saturday, September 13th for the electronic waste

However, having made that announcement I'll tell you I just looked online and it is full, but the wait list is still open and they encourage you to sign up on the wait list if you have any interest in electronic waste, I've registered, disposal on the 13th of September.

On the 19th of Friday, the 19th of September is more hazardous household waste.

Paints, antifreezes, things like that.

As well as Saturday, September 20th.

And then Saturday, September 27th is furniture and mattresses.

And then October 4th, appliances and October 11th, tires.

So it's time for cleaning things up for the winter.

And with that, if there's nothing further, then we will turn to proclamations and recognitions.

Thank you.

I enter this motion, whereas guns are the number one killer of children and teens in the United States.

And almost every single day, a child gets their hands on a gun and unintentionally kills or wounds themselves or someone else in the US.

And whereas when guns are not properly stored, tragedy can strike, whether it's a child finding a firearm and wounding or killing themselves or someone else, or someone stealing it and using it to commit crimes in our communities.

and whereas research shows that the most effective way to prevent children from accessing firearms is by making sure all guns are stored unloaded, locked and separate from ammunition.

However, more than half of gun owners do not lock all of their guns securely and an estimated 4.6 million children live in a home with at least one unlocked and loaded gun in the United States.

and whereas protecting public safety in the communities they serve is the board's highest responsibility and the County of Albemarle is committed to creating a safe environment contributing to the safety and well-being of our children.

whereas Smart Week raises awareness and promotes efforts to educate the public about secure gun storage and the County of Albemarle commends Be Smart and all involved in their endeavor to keep communities safe.

Now therefore be it proclaimed that we the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors do hereby recognize August 25 through 29, 2025 to be Smart Week.

and encourage all residents, schools, hospitals, and community organizations to commit to the crucial role of reducing injuries and deaths by promoting secure gun storage and safety.

Signed this 20th day of August 2025, Jim Andrews, Chair.

And a second.

We have a motion from Supervisor Malek and a second from Supervisor McKeel.

Ms.

LaPisto-Kirtley?

Aye.

Ms.

Ms.

McKeel?

Yes.

Yes.

And my understanding is we have Mike Fox here to accept the proclamation on behalf of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America.

Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman and Supervisor Malek, for your support.

As students go back to school, SMART Week reminds adults that they have homework, too.

When we educate the public about securely storing guns, we take real steps toward making our homes, schools, and neighborhoods safe for everyone.

Secure storage is about school safety, but it's also about keeping kids safe wherever they gather.

A friend's house for a play date, during scout meetings, on field trips, at the playground, or on the bus.

The A in SMART stands for ask.

and this applies to gun owners and non-gun owners alike.

The same way parents ask about pets, pools and allergies, a simple conversation, if you own any firearms, how are they secured, can help keep children out of harm's way.

It doesn't need to feel strange or awkward to bring up this issue.

Simple conversations with friends, caregivers and relatives before a child visits a new home can help save lives.

Change happens every day through meaningful conversations with families, friends, neighbors, and community leaders.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mike.

And I'm sure supervisors will offer comments.

Thank you, Mr. Fox, for being with us today.

I think the work that your organization is doing is critical.

And I think that given how the gun debate can become

And you made a statement.

You said, isn't it awkward that we even have to bring this up, which I agree with.

It is awkward.

People should know that if they have guns, you keep them safely locked up.

You keep them in a secure place.

You keep them away from children.

Too many accidents happen.

Kids, you see on TV, people are playing with guns and such, so they're going to play with guns.

Thank you for making this issue something of quite importance that people follow and make sure all of our children are safe, and adults too.

Well, thank you again for all that you do to bring these issues forward.

And what you mentioned about having conversations reminded me of every 10 years there would be a spectacular teen death accident from driving with alcohol.

And having those conversations with other parents before your child goes to that house or rides with that student to find out what their standards are for that kind of behavior is something that the same effort can be channeled into these conversations about weapons because

The consequences are permanent, as opposed to other accidents that can happen that might have a survivability.

Thank you.

Supervisor McKeel?

Yes, thank you for being here.

A very important topic.

And I would add that we know that even in this locality,

The way that most guns are circulating in the community is they're being stolen from cars, unlocked cars, cars where people can just reach in and grab a gun.

So it is important to lock your guns up securely and safely in your car as well as in your home.

I'm just adding that.

I want to echo all my peers' words congratulating your advocacy and the work your organization is doing on raising awareness on what feels like a really common sense policy.

And I would also just say, I know plenty of people in my life who do not think that this is common sense policy, who will suggest that

A firearm for self-defense in the home is not helpful unless it is by your bedside table in condition one.

And they believe that pretty strongly.

To which I would say, I was almost willing to accept that as a counterargument till I went to one of your events at a fair, and you know what they have that you can test drive.

a fingerprint-activated safe that only costs about a hundred bucks.

That thing opens in about one second, is coded to your fingerprint, and you could easily get that just as quickly as you can rack your firearm.

Thank you.

And I echo the comments of the other supervisors.

It's about 50 years ago that I recall I lived in a small town.

And the town was totally torn up because an unlocked gun got in the hands of some seven, eight-year-old boys and ended one of their promising lives.

So it hit the community very deeply.

And I hope for all of us in that community,

And Professor Malek has the proclamation.

Thank you very much.

As a motion, I want to have the proclamation recognizing Women's Equality Day 2025.

Whereas August 26, 1920, tens of millions of women won voting rights, the greatest expansion of democracy in US history, yet 105 years later,

women have still not achieved full equality and face ongoing and increasing threats of discrimination, violence, loss of bodily autonomy, and restrictions on voting rights.

And whereas, although on January 27, 2020, Virginia became the final of the requisite 38 states to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment, fulfilling all the requirements of the US Constitution,

yet the ERA has not been fully recognized and published allowing gender-based discrimination to continue without recourse under the foundational document undergirding all of our laws and whereas federal laws ensuring the equal rights and safety of women can be and are currently being weakened or removed

with the US Supreme Court retreating from its own precedent to take away previous constitutional rights impeding women's ability to make decisions about their own bodies, families, and futures and causing irreparable harm and unnecessary deaths and whereas females make up nearly 52%

of Albemarle County's population, and the Albemarle County government has the appropriate and legitimate role in securing and defending gender equality in the Commonwealth of Virginia and the United States.

Now, therefore, be it proclaimed that we, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, do hereby recognize August 26, 2025 as Women's Equality Day.

in celebration of all who have worked to gain voting rights for women, in recognition of all who have continued the fight for gender equality, equity, and in support of all citizens and lawmakers working today to preserve democracy and guarantee equal rights for all under the law,

in the Commonwealth of Virginia and the United States, signed this 20th day of August, 2025, Jim H. Andrews, Chair.

We have a motion from Supervisor LaPisto-Kirtley, a second from Supervisor Mallek.

Ms.

LaPisto-Kirtley?

Aye.

Ms.

Mallek?

Yes.

Ms.

McKeel?

Yes.

Mr. Pruitt?

Aye.

Yes.

And I believe we have Lisa Hilgartner, President of the League of Women Voters in the Charlottesville area and others.

Good afternoon.

Thank you for having me.

To my right.

Thank you, Chair.

Andrews, and members of the Board of Supervisors.

I am Lisa Hilgartner, president of the League of Women Voters of the Charlottesville area.

With me is Charlotte Gibson, president of the Charlottesville chapter of the National Organization of Women.

And we thank you on behalf of our organizations for the proclamation.

The mission of the League of Women Voters is to inform,

educate and advocate for the rights of women and all voters.

The League grew out of the National Women's Party's work to extend the right to vote to women after the 14th and 15th Amendments gave voting rights to male citizens, denying the vote to half the adult citizens of the United States.

The issue of equal rights for women did not end with voting rights.

Three years after the 19th Amendment was ratified in 1920,

the Equal Rights Amendment was introduced.

That's 1923.

It states that the equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of sex.

Ratification did not move along swiftly.

On August 26, 1970, the National Organization of Women, founded to take action to the rights of women, held a strike for equality.

100,000 people nationwide attended, reigniting the efforts to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment nearly 50 years after it was introduced.

In 1971, Representative Bella Abzug successfully got Congress to designate August 26th each year as Women's Equality Day.

Efforts like this revived the push for ratification, which continued through the 1970s but stalled before regaining momentum in 2017.

In 2020, Virginia became the final state needed for ratification.

The League of Women Voters and Charlottesville Now were active in Virginia's successful ratification efforts.

We still await seeing the 28th Amendment in the Constitution.

Today, the League of Women Voters and Now

Continue advocating for women's rights, enforcement of equality in hiring, firing, work-related benefits and compensation, equity in court and health care, including the ability of women to control their own bodies, and much still languishes.

Each women's voters' rights are still under threat.

In conclusion, we appreciate all the efforts of the County of Albemarle to foster equality and support women and girls.

More can be done, but this proclamation keeps Albemarle on the right track, and we thank you.

Our organizations follow the workings of Albemarle closely for our advocacy work.

You can learn more about us at lwb.cba.org and for Charlottesville Now at cvillenow.org.

Thank you.

Well, thank you for being here today.

It's just incredible that even though with all the milestones that have been achieved, the work must continue, especially in a time where, for some reason, we think equity or equality is a bad thing.

I just don't understand those who feel that way.

So I appreciate your efforts to continue to stay focused on it.

not just to reach more milestones, but make sure the enforcements of what have been achieved continue to happen.

And you hold folks to account.

And as a father of two daughters who have reached adulthood, I'm especially appreciative of those efforts.

Thank you.

Supervisor LaPisto-Kirtley.

Thank you very much for being here and to think that it was introduced almost 100 years ago, and that it took Virginia until 2020 to be the final

Thank you very much.

Growing up in a three-generation household, I heard lots of stories of my grandmother, who was a sewer as a teenager for a Ziegfeld on the train as the Follies went around the country in the 20s.

But the news from her on the street seeing all this happening was pretty exciting and pretty impactful to me as a kid.

And as Ned said, as a mother of two daughters and grandmother to two girls,

Thank you.

Thank you for being here.

This is really important discussion and important work on everybody's part.

I was just looking this up this morning when I knew we were having this proclamation today and

It was interesting, I found Lawrence Tribe, who is one of my favorite constitutional scholars, who is at the Harvard School of Law School, and he says that

The truth is, and the opposition doesn't want us to know it, that it has already met the constitutional requirements.

And no president's signature is required.

And I think you addressed some of this in what your comments were.

But no president's signature is required.

No green light from anyone.

No Supreme Court ruling.

All it takes is 218 members of the House and a majority in the Senate to do what's already true, that women's equality belongs in the Constitution.

And I would add, thinking about this, and I think Ned referenced it a little bit, if we think this is just a piece of paper or something that is about a policy,

We live in a time right now with such hostility and they are talking at some of the highest levels of our government right now.

We have a United States Defense Secretary who has posted a video openly calling for women to lose the vote.

So it is critical that we, Pete Hesseff posted a video urging and featuring pastors who all openly call for women to be stripped of the right to vote.

If you've not seen it, you should take a look at it.

Those are the scary times we're living in.

I've seen it myself.

Yes.

So this is not the time to sit back and say it's OK, everything is all right, because

It's not.

I was shocked.

But having said that, we're really thankful that you are here and bringing this to the attention of those of us at the Dais and as well in Albemarle County.

Thank you.

And I appreciated learning, actually, how much Women's Equality Day has been actually wrapped up in the history of the ERA.

And I really appreciated Supervisor McKeel's statement quoting from Professor Tribe, because I mean, it's true, right?

I'm of the not tremendously uncommon legal opinion that

It is in the Constitution.

It is part of the Constitution.

It has been part of the Constitution since 2020.

But the fact that we stand here and we aren't in agreement, or that we say we are waiting for it to be in the Constitution, I think reflects the gravity of the situation we continue to be, where the perceived social obstacles, the perceived political obstacles, the perceived

legal obstacles to women's equality still are somehow greater, even while being amorphous.

They're still somehow greater than the sum courage of political and legal leadership to say otherwise.

These obstacles to women's equality are still somehow bigger and stronger than Joe Biden being able to direct the archivist to correct the Constitution.

which is, I think, a pretty damning indictment of our country.

I also want to add my gratitude for what you're up against and how hard you've been working.

I looked through the history of this whole thing, and it's long.

And it was introduced, reintroduced, reintroduced over and over again.

I'm reminded of the button that I saw just not that long ago, yet she persisted.

And the perseverance here is very much appreciated.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

The Board, this brings us to public comment on matters previously considered or currently pending before the Board, other than scheduled for public hearings.

All right.

And we do have three people signed up to speak, and no one is online.

So during the time set aside for public comment on matters previously considered or currently pending before the Board, individuals may address the Board of Supervisors.

Individuals are allowed one opportunity of up to three minutes to speak at each board meeting.

The sign up sheet is managed by the clerk's office.

Timekeeping is conducted through a timer and light system at the podium.

The green light will go on when you begin speaking, which begins your allotted time.

The yellow light indicates you have one minute to finish speaking.

The red line indicates your time has expired and you will be asked to end your comments.

In order to give all speakers equal treatment and courtesy, the board requests that you follow the following guidelines.

When addressing the board, state your name and if you live in Albemarle County, your magisterial district.

address written comments directly to the board as a whole.

Any written statements or other supporting material may be given to the clerk.

If representing a group or organization, you may ask others present to raise their hands in recognition.

Speakers may not share any unused time with another speaker.

Back and forth debate is not permitted.

And please do not speak from your seat or out of turn.

All comments are live streamed, recorded, and published on the Albemarle County website.

Welcome.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

Jim Hingely, Albemarle County resident, Scottsville District.

I'm here to advise the board about a very important upcoming community event.

On September 5th of this year, which is A Friday, we are having a 75th anniversary commemoration of the Gregory Swanson case decision.

and I'm happy to say that Albemarle County is a partner in putting on this event.

The Gregory Swanson case, which was decided on September 5, 1950, is the case in which the United States federal court sitting here in Charlottesville entered an order against the Board of Visitors of UVA requiring

UVA to admit Gregory Swanson to the law school, Gregory Swanson having been denied admission to the law school because he was African American.

This is a landmark civil rights decision that occurred right here in this community.

It has national significance, but of course it also has local significance to all of us because it happened right here.

And this was the first court order that resulted in the admission of an African American to

a segregated white institution in all of the South.

So we are a trailblazing community.

And this is an event that's very much worth commemorating.

Now, for those who are listening or in the audience that don't know the details of this, it is, again, I will repeat, September 5th of this year, which is a Friday, the commemoration begins at 2 o'clock p.m.

It will be located

in the Jefferson Madison Regional Library, Central Library downtown.

And it will take place in the actual courthouse where this decision was rendered, in the actual courtroom where it was rendered.

And so it starts at 2 o'clock Friday, September 5, the commemoration of the 75th anniversary

of the Gregory Swanson case decision.

The event is open to the public, and we encourage everyone to come out for this very important commemoration.

And thank you.

And I have given flyers to the clerk, which I hope she will have a chance to distribute to the board members and staff.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

I'm Kim Biasioli.

I'm a conservation program manager with the Piedmont Environmental Council.

I'm here today to discuss the draft riparian buffer protection standards.

Riparian buffers play a critical role in protecting water quality for the members of our community with respect to public health, recreation, and our drinking water supply.

They also provide important natural habitat and wildlife corridors.

We need to retain and restore riparian buffers for all these reasons but also to build our community's resiliency to major storm events, which are projected to increase in frequency and intensity in this changing climate.

PEC would like to commend the county staff for moving this forward and acknowledge the tremendous effort that has led up to this point.

Since 2017, when this board directed staff to identify strategies for improving stream health in the county, there have been numerous work sessions and stakeholder engagement meetings.

Extensive research and analysis of different strategies, other localities' ordinances, and the costs and benefits of each approach were earnestly and deeply considered.

You can find this detailed history and background information on the county's Stream Health Initiative website.

PEC strongly supports completion and adoption of these riparian buffer protection standards.

As you review and discuss them in today's work session, we hope you'll do so with the recognition that this draft ordinance is the culmination of those many years of effort developed with robust community engagement and careful consideration of details and alternatives.

Albemarle has a long history of planning focused on watershed protection and it's widely viewed as a leader in the Commonwealth in this area.

The riparian buffer protection standards, when they are adopted, will have a positive and meaningful impact for our community and will serve as a model ordinance for other localities going forward.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

Neil Williamson, president of the Free Enterprise Forum, a privately funded public policy organization focused on central Virginia's local governments.

This afternoon, you'll hold a work session about moving your riparian, I have to get used to saying that, I still call them stream buffers, stream buffer ordinance from the water protection ordinance into the zoning ordinance.

No changes to the buffers themselves are proposed, but what is the impact of those buffers?

on land available in the development areas.

Yes, it reduces the land available in the development areas.

Why are these buffers in place?

Well, according to the staff report and much of the scientific data that I've seen, it's stream health, and that's a viable goal.

While the Free Enterprise Forum applauds the performance standards that are objective, that are embedded in the draft ordinance, we have to ask, when will you restore the development area?

When you choose to implement stream buffers without development area expansion for those lost lands, you choose the environment over housing your residents.

Now is a good time to review that concept of land swap and take the stream buffers and, hey, take the whole stream out of the development area and find adjacent properties to the existing development areas to replace that lost land.

Hey, while you're at it,

Let's find 800 acres to replace the Biscuit Run Park.

Absent such action, Albemarle will, once again, have shrunk the development area.

And that is it for the public comment.

And I've heard nothing recommended for removal or discussion.

So looking for a motion to approve the consent agenda.

We have a motion from Supervisor McKeel, second from Supervisor Mallek.

Mr. Galloway?

Yes.

Ms.

LaPisto-Kirtley?

Aye.

Ms.

Mallek?

Yes.

Ms.

Yes.

Board, this brings us to our first work session, Riparian Buffer Protection Standards Draft Ordinance.

And I see Mr. Scott Clark, Conservation Program Manager here, and Mr. Frank Pohl, right behind our county engineer.

Good afternoon.

Thank you.

I'm Scott Clark with the Community Development Department.

Mr. Frank Pohl, the county engineer, is here and several other community development staffers are available to answer questions that come up in this work session.

And we are here to talk about the proposed Riparian Buffer Protection Standards Ordinance.

Just a quick overview of what we'll be doing today.

We'll review briefly the Stream Health Initiative and how it leads to the topic of riparian buffers.

We'll talk about current buffer regulations and the proposed buffer protection standards.

We'll save most of the time for questions and discussion, and then briefly go over the next steps.

So the Stream Health Initiative, which began back in 2017, was an extensive outreach and community interaction effort that had the goal of finding methods to protect stream quality throughout the county.

There was extensive community outreach, including stakeholder work groups that set the vision and goals and developed recommendations with staff.

There was a community learning series and there were online community surveys and other methods of outreach to the community.

The result of this was a series of 14 community-developed recommendations for stream health protection.

Recommendation number one on that list was to move stream buffer or riparian buffer protections from the water protection ordinance into the zoning ordinance to have better protection of those buffers.

Just as a reminder, repairing buffer is an area of vegetation adjacent to a stream, wetland, reservoir, river, or pond.

And the board adopted a resolution of intent to pursue that amendment to the zoning ordinance back in March of 2022.

The scope of the project that was identified with that resolution was to move the riparian buffer regulations from the Water Protection Ordinance, WPO, to the zoning ordinance in order to protect stream health and wildlife habitat and boost climate resiliency, to address stream impairments by filtering non-point source pollution, and to provide better clarity and uses that are permitted within the buffers.

The goal here is also to implement standards that protect our vegetation countywide while keeping the current exemptions for agriculture and forestry.

So where are these buffers?

The buffers that are proposed in this ordinance are the same as those currently regulated by the Water Protection Ordinance.

I'll just quickly review what those are.

Within the development areas, if you are not in a water supply protection area, which is the watershed of a reservoir or public water intake, then those buffers are 100 feet wide on perennial streams and continuous wetlands.

In a development area and within a water supply protection area, then the 100-foot buffer applies to both perennial and intermittent streams or to the limits of the flood hazard overlay district.

There is some ability to have structures in the outer 50 feet of buffers on intermittent streams, but only with a mitigation plan.

Directly adjacent to public water supply impoundments,

The buffer extends 200 feet from the floodplain of that impoundment elsewhere, meaning the rural area is not immediately adjacent to a reservoir.

The buffers are either 100 feet on any perennial or intermittent stream or the limits of the flood hazard overlay district, otherwise known as the FEMA 100-year flood

So in the Water Protection Ordinance, our current buffer regulations only apply to land disturbances of 10,000 square feet or more.

And those disturbances are permitted but require mitigation.

However, for disturbances below 10,000 square feet, buffer vegetation is not protected, except to say that new structures that require building permits are not permitted in those buffers.

but otherwise outside of a regulated land disturbance, trees and other vegetation in the buffers can be removed.

The proposed ordinance would move these standards from the water protection ordinance to section four of the zoning ordinance and takes a performance standards approach.

Some of the key sections here include

423-4, which sets the boundaries we just discussed.

423-3 identifies the county engineer as the administrator, the riparian buffer administrator or RBA.

423-6, which we'll talk about, establishes criteria for vegetation management in the buffers.

And 7 and 8 list the permitted uses in those buffers.

So what vegetation changes would be permitted under this proposed ordinance?

Right now, again, projects with 10,000 square feet of disturbance or more are regulated in the buffers.

Vegetation can be removed, but you have to do a mitigation plan to restore the disturbed area.

However, elsewhere in the apartment, vegetation can be removed.

Except for permitted uses, native vegetation within the buffer must not be disturbed or removed.

And buffers must be maintained in as natural a condition as possible.

Speaking of those permitted uses, there are two categories of them.

One is just buy-write uses that can go ahead and occur.

The other is uses that are allowed by administrator approval, but they require a mitigation plan.

So that first category includes several uses, including agriculture and forestry, utilities, water-dependent facilities, and the others you can see on the screen here, which are considered to be by-right uses within that buffer area.

There are quite a few proposed uses by RBA approval with a mitigation plan.

Many of these relate to stormwater and flood management.

There's also environmental restoration projects.

and also uses that occur in the buffer where the buffer would otherwise prevent reasonable use of a lot.

And the last section of the proposed ordinance, 423.9, sets standards for mitigation plans, identifies a two to one ratio for restoration of vegetation, requires that native species be used,

includes a link to the engineering design standards manual to identify buffer vegetation management methods.

And this section also states that the buffer administrator can require bonds until the plants are established to make sure that the mitigation is actually successful.

So we have two general discussion questions for you all today.

First is, does the draft ordinance help to meet the goals listed in 423.1, which is the purposes?

And second, does the board have any feedback about the general performance criteria listed in 423.6?

And if needed, I can put the text of those two sections up on the screen to help with your discussion.

OK, thank you.

I certainly think that people are going to have questions, but I think we can start to answer the questions that you've asked as well.

But with that, I think we can go through the order at least twice and see how things go, because I'm sure there will be comments on comments.

It might have been slide 16.

I think it was the permitted uses.

Just for the passive recreation, this is just, I'm assuming, walking, or does it go beyond that?

The next slide says impervious surface.

To me, I'm thinking of the facility, but the activity seems to be important as well.

So facilities like unpaved trails would be better, right?

OK.

And passive recreation of facilities.

This is Frank Pohl, county engineer.

This is kind of not a direct quote from the ordinance.

So the ordinance is a little more specific in passive recreation access and facilities, such as educational signs and kiosks and trails are passed with pervious surfaces and boardwalks in accordance with the DCR manual.

Paths serving individual residential lots.

with a limit on the width.

And those are included by right.

But it is focused on the facility, not the activity that could happen on it.

I mean, you could have different things on different surfaces.

I don't even know if that's a big deal, but I'm thinking about walking versus things that are more aggressive beyond walking.

Yeah, we don't have walking in the buffer as identified as permanent.

I don't know that

We would need to to allow that.

We didn't intend to not allow walking through the woods in a buffer, but these are, I think, uses that we think would impact the buffer.

All right, and then your questions you want us to answer?

I mean, I think the first one was about whether or not we think the goals are being achieved.

Was that the first question?

I mean, I felt I didn't feel like they weren't beating them.

I mean, I think I can answer yes, I feel that way on this particular one.

I probably have some commentary at some point, but I think question-wise I didn't have a whole lot of questions coming in upon review.

Thank you.

Yes, thank you very much for the presentation.

To answer your questions, the first one is 4.2, 3.1.

I really do like the idea of encouraging retention of native vegetation because I think we've seen too much non-native vegetation, but what I'm wondering

So for developments currently, projects that impact buffers, they must provide mitigation.

Mitigation can be in the form of, first and foremost, it's planting within the buffer.

If that cannot happen because the entire buffer is already planted, then we ask for removal of invasive species.

Now, we can't require buffer mitigation outside of the buffer, 100-foot buffer limits because it's

beyond the regulation.

So everything is within that buffer area.

And for just enforcement of native removal of native vegetation, that would be an enforcement.

But I don't know that that's a good question.

I don't know that we anticipated going out and just enforcing removal of non-native species

There's nothing in the draft ordinance that mandates outside of development projects there's no mandated removal of invasive species.

And I understand there are a lot of non-native species, but there's a couple of them.

Bamboo is one, and what's the other, climbing vine?

Bittersweet and Ailanthus are both pretty awful.

Okay, that one, which I don't know anything about, but what's the other one?

The one that's all over the highway.

The one that's all over everywhere, according North and South Carolina.

Kudzu.

Kudzu.

Right, right.

I'm just throwing that out.

Encouraging is one thing, but requiring it through the ordinance is another, and we do not require that.

I like the way you say that, Mr. Poll.

Sure.

We can.

But we cannot require it.

So that answer.

Can you go back to the second question?

Do I have feedback?

OK.

and for the general criteria in 4.2, 3.6, I don't have any questions, but I do have one question.

Correct.

This is a buffer ordinance and the buffer begins at the top of Bank

OK.

All right.

I thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So much in here to be joyful about.

Thank you very much for all of your work.

I do have some questions.

So when you get tired of my questions, give me the hook, and then I'll come back and have some more later.

Mostly just want to make sure that I understand well.

So in several places in the draft,

It's mentioned about exemptions for agriculture and forestry.

So I've received questions from members of the public saying, what does this mean?

Does this mean anybody living in the rural area where agriculture often happens is now exempt?

The answer to that question is no.

What's being permitted as a use within the buffer is an agricultural use or a silvicultural use, which are both defined in the ordinance.

So it's not simply being located in the rural area that provides that exemption.

It's having an active use.

and the same would go for open land that isn't in an agricultural production with a field right there or a forest right there would still have to meet the requirements.

I think I can explain that well enough.

I would like to add there's a definition in the zoning ordinance of agricultural activity that includes bona fide activities and there's listed activities in there similar to what's in the WPO ordinance.

I was looking for that and obviously missed it.

So thank you for pointing that out.

So that's excellent.

The, where was I?

OK, some things that came out in my studying of the Planning Commission discussion, which was really well done.

And I just want to make sure that if there are further explanation.

One of them is about mention of single family houses and the relationship of that to also an exemption.

So can you, this is on page 4.

of the Planning Commission notes.

So is that something you can provide extra detail about?

Exemption if the development involved a single family residence, 421-4.

So this is one of the ones I mentioned earlier in the email so that I can understand this better.

So there are two restrictions for building a buffer under the zoning ordinance.

One is you have to be within a building site unless that building site makes the lot undevelopable for reasonable use of a single-family.

That is accounted for in the ordinance to allow that to occur if that situation exists.

Within the last year or so, I know we had a lot come before us that had some adjustment that had to be made for crossing for access, probably related to what you just said.

Is there a time when the lot had to be created in order to qualify for this?

Correct.

That date was adopted in the WPO ordinance.

It's February 11, 1998.

Great.

That ought to cover it.

And that's been included with this draft.

Thank you.

I didn't see it written yet, but it may be in process coming forward in this next set of work.

Yes, so in the subdivision ordinance and in the site plan ordinance there are provisions or processes that are identified under section 14-422e for the subdivision and 18

dash 4.2.1b for those processes.

Yes.

Great.

Maybe I'll be able to understand it, and that'll be good.

Thank you.

There was really good discussion in the Planning Commission about how important education is, and I know there was presentation about how that's coming next as well.

But just in relation to some comments that have been talked about in the last few days, there's tremendous benefit to the community at large for the buffers, and I don't think

Anyone would be building a house or any kind of residential structure in the development area in a buffer because it's a high risk place to put a house.

There are reasons why there are floodplain delineations and federal rules and state rules and local rules.

And it is to keep people safe.

And it was back in 2010 that the buffers were established actually on the east side of 29 because they had been on the west side of 29 for 30 years because of the watershed.

But the discussion was, well, what about all these sheds and grills and picnic tables and things that are going to be washed away and smashed into your neighbor's house when there's high water?

And we've certainly seen lots of high water in the last few years in places where no one dreamed that it would happen, like that tiny stream in Greenwood just a few months ago.

So I really think it's really impactful for our education program as we go forward to

to help people understand what the benefits are in addition to the drinking water and the macro invertebrates and all the la-la things is that this is survival for people and our community as well and avoiding damage.

At the RBC meeting yesterday, the speaker talked about all the educational materials that DCR and DEQ already have prepared.

So there may be some resources there that we can lift.

They encourage that when we're working on this to please lift all those things, because that's what they're for.

I was very glad to see in the homework about tree clearing as considered a land disturbance.

And then there was a mention of 10,000 square feet.

So are those still connected?

A development project would not be exempt to this regulation.

So the 10,000 is for land disturbance permits.

So they could come in with a 5,000 square foot project

So that's when the WPO still has control over that.

Does that sound right?

The WPO and the buffer ordinances, let's assume those are two different things now, right?

Because if we adopt the

the standards that you have in front of you, those standards would apply but the WPO would not for land disturbance.

If it's under 10,000 the WPO, they don't trip the threshold for the water protection ordinance but they still have to meet the proposed

OK, that's really good news.

RBPS.

OK, so is there now also a cumulative effect for these smaller projects?

whatever they are.

So I'm thinking back to the time before we had a cumulative impact and someone could make a 9,000 square foot parking lot year after year after year after year and get 60,000 square foot parking lot with no storm water.

In the ordinance that you're looking at today, there is no cap or there's no threshold.

So zero, one square feet.

However small you want to look at it.

For the WPO,

There is still the 10,000.

There's a consideration for projects that do have a cumulative effect.

So that's just in the WPO, though.

But again, to the previous discussion, if it's a development project that it

OK.

All right.

I've been living this for too long, and I'm easily confused.

All right.

On to something else that was raised at the Planning Commission, the farm roads.

And I think you both have been around long enough to remember Advance Mills Farm and how they took a 50-year-old farm road and decided to turn it into a subdivision without any ditches or anything else.

So how does this policy impact how we will be able to have control over the transition of a farm road into a development road?

The two-year limitation still applies in the Water Protection Ordinance.

So if you convert a farm road to a subdivision road within two years and the land disturbance to build that farm road exceeded 10,000 square feet, then you would be subject to the Water Protection Ordinance and have to permit that.

So that's the water protection ordinance.

Until the use changes.

And then is there remedial work

or a discontinuance if it becomes several houses instead?

That's my understanding, yes.

Thank you very much.

And for places where existing infrastructure, whatever it is, is being possibly exempted or initially exempted from the new RBPS rules, is there a threshold beyond which the exemption doesn't work?

for existing something, whether it's existing roads or before improvements to bring them up to standard, basically.

I'm thinking of a comparison would be a driveway for two houses versus one for three means you have to then have state standards for your entrance.

No, I think existing uses that

Existing uses would become non-conforming if they're not a permitted use.

That's the savior right there, is the non-conforming definition then fixes it where it is until process happens.

And now, let me zoom down here.

Did that, did that, did that, did that.

Is an operator the machine driver?

No.

They are, but in legal terms from the VSMP, they are the overall authority who gets the permit.

OK.

Owner is the operator.

I thought, boy, these backhoe drivers are getting a lot of responsibility here.

OK.

Well, that's what comes to my mind.

Very good.

Can you help us be reminded of the criteria for agreement in lieu instead of having an ENS plan?

The agreement in lieu is only for single-family development between 10,000 square feet of land disturbance in an acre.

And that allows an agreement in lieu for both stormwater management, which has certain requirements, and then erosion and sediment control with a critical resources plan.

So they still have to provide a critical resources plan to show that they're out of the critical resources in the county.

But a plan for erosion and sediment control is required A large lot on a steep slope can still get some serious velocity going There was a chart

that had two year cycles and one year cycles and I was trying to understand what that was all about and that's the wrong thing here, that's in the ordinance.

There were things that seemed to be pretty innocuous that had longer delays than others.

The general permit, reasons for extension, I guess

It is in the draft.

That is in a?

17-501.

So, as I said, I'm easily confused.

I may be going down the wrong rabbit hole here and you can help me later.

17501 is the Water Protection Ordinance and I think there are some changes in there.

I think the only changes to 17.501 are just wording changes to change stream buffer to riparian buffer.

So the reason it's in the draft is just that there's minor wording changes being made, but it's not being added or deleted.

There was nothing really underlined, but it did show some of them had one acre, one year, and some had two.

And I don't even know what a permit cycle is.

The state's five years, and the county's one year.

We don't have really a permit cycle.

We just issue out new permits every year.

We don't issue them.

There's a maintenance fee every year, but their permit doesn't expire until they get their bond released.

So it doesn't necessarily mean that they haven't started something.

It means that they're just not finished with it.

If the permit was granted sometime between 2014 and today, any number of different possibilities exist as far as the state of what it is.

I'm not sure I understand.

I am definitely deep in a rabbit hole here.

stop digging on that one since the hole is getting deeper and I will come back another time.

In recent conversation with Rob Farrell and Dave Powell from the Department of Forestry, they mentioned that they were working on MOU things perhaps with the county or maybe with other counties to be able to help manage

the discrepancy that seems to the pit where things fall when someone says I'm going to clear cut this big parcel in free union which just happened and then under forestry but then they don't follow the forestry rules all the damage is done the stumps are all removed and now we have a huge erosion problem and forestry says

It's the county's problem now because they're not a forestry project anymore.

So this MOU, and this has happened dozens of times in the last 25 years in various places, so I hope that that MOU will make some progress because I think this is a big gap that is sort of related to this effort that we're doing now, but

These are the kinds of things that happen around the fringes that make a lot of misery for the people downstream who are suffering from a lot of erosion damage to their property.

So keep an eye out for the MOU, please, and we'll see about that.

Where does the establishment of permanent vegetative cover come in, if anywhere, in this?

Or is that strictly an overlaid grading thing?

But it still exists?

It does exist.

It's typically when you have a permit, permitted site, that that applies.

OK, WPO permit.

Blah, blah, blah.

I'm finally done for now.

Thank you.

Yes.

And it does occur to me as I'm listening to this discussion that I learn a lot from the questions.

And I really appreciate.

One of the nice things about having a board that has a variety of strengths, areas of strength, is that when Ann asks questions about this type of topic, I learn a lot from the answers to her questions.

I'm an urban rain kind of girl.

So I'm just simply saying that as a starting point.

At first blush, I do find that this is, I'm really supportive of this project.

Having said that, I may not understand the depth that Ann does, but it does seem like I'm very supportive of this.

Help me a little bit though with, and I've said this multiple times, so

if we just adopted the Chesapeake Bay ordinance.

And Frank, you can help me with this, because you and I have had this discussion many times.

I hear some folks say, one of our planning commissioners, that we've gone above and beyond the Chesapeake Bay ordinance.

Maybe we have in some areas.

I've not really seen that.

Having said that,

Is it just that we don't have the bandwidth to do everything that is asked for in the Chesapeake Bay ordinance?

Or is there some other reason?

Because it just seems like it would take away a lot of the issues that our community even brings to us about.

I will try to answer that question, because it is a

a topic that we discussed four years ago and brought to the board and explained why we didn't think at the time it was something we should do and the board agreed at that time and so we went down this path to create

to move our ordinance first to get it out of the water protection ordinance, the stream buffers, and put them in a riparian buffer ordinance.

If you recall, there's a septic... One example, there's a septic tank pumping requirement in the Ches Bay Act, which we have around 100,000, I think, is the number throughout the county.

And every five years, they have to be pumped.

We figured there would need to be additional for staff to

to monitor 20,000 a year.

So on a five-year cycle, that'd be one every 20,000 every five years.

So that was one thing.

We have adopted.

The stream buffers are not required in the county.

Our standards are higher because we include intermittent streams in the rural areas.

The Ches Bay does not include intermittent streams.

They only include perennial streams.

We do include a 50-foot intermittent stream requirement also within development areas if they're within a water protection area.

So really, I think the issue was, and then the Thomas Soil Waters Conservation District would have to hire personnel.

Yeah.

They told us that.

So there would need to be coordination on that.

Yeah.

So I think it would be a larger, I think we agreed it would be a larger lift to do that.

and I'm not pushing back on that because I was part of the board that agreed to that and I remember that and at the time I understood it and I just think it's worthy of bringing back up again as we're talking about this so what I'm hearing from staff or from you Frank is that

In some areas we are going above and beyond, which is great, but we still do not have the bandwidth to do what would be required in at least a portion of the Chesapeake Bay ordinance.

And I have to say that if we really wanted to protect

our water, our groundwater, and we would be.

I mean septic systems are not where we should be going.

So if my druthers, we wouldn't have any septic systems, you know, in Albemarle County, but I recognize that's not realistic.

I mean it's just not going to happen, but it really is one of our problems because I see problems with septic systems all the time.

Anyway, having said that, I get it.

There are some that are just performance standards that we could adopt.

I suggest we complete this

and then we can start looking at that.

I don't want to bog this down further.

It's been four years plus.

I think we're close.

And I get that.

And I don't want to stop anything today.

I'm happy to move forward with this.

I just wanted to have the discussion again because I think it is worthy of putting on the table.

And what I'm hearing is that at some point, and I won't be here in January, but

Maybe not next year, but at some point to come back to this again would be, at least some of these points would be appropriate.

and I'll stop with that on that but I want to just ask because Ann had some great questions which I learned a lot about and I really appreciated Bea bringing up the native plants.

So help me understand is it the, and I'm going directly to the non-natives and why we couldn't require

removal of at least a couple of the worst, maybe not all of them, but at least a couple of the worst non-native plants.

I would have to look more into that being a requirement without any action by the owner to impact the buffers.

I don't know that this would help.

allow us to, to me if there's, and just thinking quickly about it, if that's an existing condition, is that a nonconforming use, for instance, right?

I don't know the answer to that.

Is that a nuisance?

Okay, that's fine.

Oh, Bart's walking up.

There we go.

Bart Swoboda, Deputy Director of Community Development.

So I think, and you guys will talk a little bit about this later with Running Bend.

There's specific enabling sections.

If we're doing mitigation within the buffer, meaning I've done something within the buffer that kicks in the regulation, we could mitigate out the invasives.

We're not enabled to just go in and say, Supervisor McKeel, you have a plan we don't like on your property.

We're going to either fine you or you have to remove it.

We're not able to do that, I do not believe.

Thank you.

Yeah, when you look at the running bamboo things later, possibly you'll see the same thing.

They weren't able to make a property owner contain it on their property, but we can't make them actually remove it.

So mitigation-wise, we can do some things.

And I wasn't, obviously we have so many non-native

But I was looking at a couple of specifically the worst that we really have a huge problem with.

And they're destroying our trip.

Well, I won't get into that later.

Okay, thank you very much.

I appreciate it.

And I guess I have comments for later, but I think I've asked all the questions I wanted to ask and just for the questions, I would say yes.

I mean, I'm fine on those.

Thank you.

I actually want to pick up on the discussion we were just having about natives and invasives.

And specifically I want to, I mean this is maybe more of a pretty direct critique.

I don't see native vegetation defined within chapter 18.

and we invoke native vegetation in 4.23.6b1 where native vegetation must not be disturbed and then again in c2 where native vegetation must be preserved.

There are colorable different interpretations of what native vegetation means.

This board I think all has a very specific understanding of what it means when we talk about it, but I mean someone invoked kudzu, right?

Kudzu has been in Virginia longer than any one of us has been.

I could very colorably say that Kudzu is native and therefore does not apply to these things, right?

So I would raise that we need to define it somewhere if we're going to be relying on it heavily and it's not defined.

So if there is a definition that we're relying on elsewhere,

I believe there's a reference in the draft to species selection guidance in the engineering design standards manual.

and that manual, as currently drafted, it would refer to this list on the left, which is the Piedmont region native plant list from Virginia DCR.

I think we probably need to add the riparian buffer zone list on the right to that list.

And I actually, you know, sometimes we're talking about a lot of very discreet things and then sometimes we're talking about big pictures.

I want to make sure I am just for my own sense of making sure I've got it and also maybe for a bit of public clarity.

I kind of want to walk through a hypothetical of how I think this ordinance fundamentally works.

And I want you to interrupt me if I'm wrong.

So there is currently a billy goat trail along a stream

in what's going to be the future Biscuit Run Greenway.

That is not a non-conforming use because it is pervious and it is a passive recreation element.

And if I wanted to even expand that pervious billy goat trail, a dirt trail, that is also still permitted because it's an exception to not requiring additional work.

It's just listed as a permitted use by right with no further mediation.

But the Biscuit Run Greenway Trail plan actually calls for compacted gravel for the trail, which is an impervious use, which means upon trying to lay gravel in the Biscuit Run Greenway Trail, the county, as the holder of the easement in question, would be in the position of having to

submit a mitigation plan, which would then have to be approved by the riparian buffer administrator.

And it would have to comply with all the elements outlined in C and then also with the 4.23.9, which is the form of the.

And that is the core thing we're talking about and what it essentially does most of the time.

No.

Great.

Is there any part of that process that I misstated or anything where there is a technicality that I'm missing?

I don't believe it.

Great.

I love when I get something right.

I also want to make sure the process for nonconformities I'm understanding correctly.

Because I think this would apply for any nonconformities, but it triggers here, right?

So a single family home that is in the riparian buffer is currently a nonconformity, meaning it can continue to exist.

It does not have to tear down and relocate, but it is a nonconformity.

If there is damage to that,

I guess I'm never clear what the repair line in nonconformities, how broadly that embraces.

So if I have a wall fall off my house, can I put the wall back up?

So I think this is a question that you'd, I was going to say it depends on which ordinance you're in, right?

Because the floodplain ordinance, if you're over 50% of the value of the home, you can't rebuild.

or you have to bring it up to standard.

Our standard is not to allow homes and flood points.

Regarding the buffer, there's not a threshold for cost.

You're allowed to repair any kind of repair and expand into the buffer

if your house is already within the buffer and that house existed prior to the date in the ordinance because that's when the original buffer ordinance was adopted.

And if that house existed prior to the ordinance, it was built without the restriction of expansion.

So the idea is that the original home builder had the rights to expand their home with the caveat that you cannot encroach into a set back

or further into a floodplain.

You can't expand in the floodplain anyway, so that's not a good example.

OK.

and I am okay with certainly the first question.

The second question just, I've got a few questions that I'm gonna follow up on.

I think they've been raised in some sense, but I'm still somewhat confused, I apologize.

First of all, I'll just follow up on the native, non-native question, just by example.

If I have a buffer zone that is replete with non-native species,

and I were to go in and clear them all out.

I hope so.

I would assume, I would hope so.

Yeah, I believe so.

But that means that the removal of an invasive triggers the need for the restoration.

Let me read this, please.

Because I know you don't want a believe, I believe so answer.

So land disturbing is must comply with this is considered land disturbance and buffer replacement and restoration activities so would fall under paragraph 8 or section 8 so they

It helps me to understand the priorities here, because obviously we've said already, I think, that they're not required to remove those invasives, at least under the current law.

But yet we're saying it's sufficiently important to preserve the buffer that if they do remove them, they need to fix the buffer.

That's a clear hierarchy, in my opinion, of what's considered most important under this.

Following up on additional questions, I still am a little unclear as to what constitutes bona fide agricultural activity and what's triggered.

So the example I want to get is if someone has crops or hay on their land, if it's in the buffer,

That's an exempt activity, is my understanding.

It's just a permitted use.

But if they have the same parcel that has this activity, are they, because they have that activity on that parcel limited, if it's not in the buffer and they want to do something to expand it to the buffer without agriculture?

I mean, are other activities in the buffer they want to say,

We want to do something else, set up something in the buffer.

And we're an agricultural land, so we're exempt.

Does that worry me?

Ideally, since an agricultural use is defined.

And you could easily have a large property where there are agricultural uses occurring on a portion of that large property.

But if they extend the ag use, a crop, grazing, whatever it is, into the buffer, that's clearly permitted.

But if they've got grazing on one side of the property and the other side of the property, they have a house and landscaping.

clear trees in the buffer to extend the landscaping for the house or make a deck or something that's clearly not an agricultural use.

I wouldn't read this to mean that they're somehow exempted just because there's agriculture somewhere on that parcel.

Thank you.

Another area that's been touched on that I'm just having a little bit of trouble making sure I understand is the idea of development and when it includes one lot or one dwelling and when it requires development to be three lots or more because

The definitions in 3.1 talk about development.

A unit of single ownership used to be used for business or industrial purposes, or to contain three or more dwelling units.

Yet in 423.6, C7, it talks about where development precludes require and buffer.

For the purpose of the subsection, the term development means a subdivision creating one.

or more lots.

And then there are other places where single family homes are exempted from the same level of restriction on plans.

And I guess I just, the use of the word development in here, is it only defined as it is in section

3.1, where it specifically talks three or more dwelling units?

So I'm trying to find that definition, 3.1, I found it.

The only changes, again, to that one are that we've added Ann Riparian buffer protection standards for development.

Well, in 23.6, the general performance standards,

NC, for example, development is used repeatedly throughout this, development or redevelopment.

So in section 43267, which is page 33 of attachment A, again that definition of development is limited to that specific subsection.

So the definition of development that you see in section 3.1 for the zoning ordinance as a whole

That's spelled out as being for dam break inundation zone purposes.

So when you look at, again, the limiting language on page 33 of attachment A, it does say for purposes of this subsection.

So we're looking at just that subsection for development to mean one or more.

Correct.

OK, thank you.

That's the way I would see it, but to make sure that I am understanding these, I have to think about that three or more every time I read it.

So my answer is otherwise yes to the first and that any additional feedback is as I provided just as cleaning up or clarifying development and making sure that I understand the agricultural question.

I did find in 423.5 where it talks about development applications and then optional boundary determinations.

I didn't understand the difference between those.

That is site specific surveys of the location of the riparian buffer may be submitted for review by the riparian buffer administrator.

So an applicant may submit a survey showing where they think the buffer is and see for the exemption we get a lot of single-family home sites.

This allows for us to look at our maps and

make a determination to exempt having to do a site-specific evaluation.

I think I get it.

That was probably not worth the effort.

But I'm going to continue with some of my specific questions.

In the slides, you had the four different land categories.

If you could pull that slide up again.

Development areas, public water supply, impoundments, other locations.

There we go.

OK.

Yeah, the actual ordinance states include structures, but it includes activities.

Let me read the actual.

Structures, improvements, or activities located within the landward 50 horizontal feet of the riparian buffer that are either supportive infrastructure necessary to allow reasonable use of the lot, as provided in the sections listed, or located along an intermittent stream that lies within both a water supply protection area and a development area.

So it allows the reduction of the buffer to be 50 feet

Thank you.

That's helpful.

As I said, it wasn't in our materials that way.

This sentence did not make it, and I'm not sure why.

So I was having trouble distinguishing between this and the all other locations language, which is otherwise identical.

Continuing into 4-23-8.

In 8B2 that says supportive infrastructure necessary to allow reasonable use of the lot as provided in section 423.8B8 or 9, there actually is no 8 on my copies.

It goes 7 and 9.

Which page?

OK.

It's skipping in the numbering.

Seven to nine.

OK.

Well, as a sort of final one, because the rest are, I think, been handled.

Under attachment B, it talks about the proposed amendments to the design standards manual, and it has a change matrix with a P with two asterisks, yet I don't see that one being used at all in the actual matrix.

I think that was from an earlier version where there were some that had the two asterisks.

I think that dropped out just during revisions.

Thank you.

With that, I'm going to go through our order again.

I have no additional questions.

I appreciate the questions of my fellow board members.

Right, I don't really, well no I guess I do have one question.

It's not being modified in any way.

Okay, that's all I wanted to know.

Thank you for the presentation.

Thank you, and a couple of follow-up things that I really appreciate others raising.

regarding the adoption of portions of the Chesapeake Bay Act.

We don't have to take the whole thing on clean and sinker.

And as other communities east of 95 did, they adopted it a stage at a time rather than all at once.

And the one item that I forwarded a link to Scott and Frank, as well as all of you in the last little while, about some performance standards that resource management areas

could incorporate what the language has already written and adopted.

And some counties actually make their whole county a resource management area in order to simplify their lives.

So I would love to have you all react to that at some point and figure out if there are some of those which could be incorporated to our benefit, not starting over again by any means.

But I'm also remembering that the last four years

I'm reluctant to say we'll do it later, just because it took us four years to get here.

And if there's something that we can do that the work has already been done by others, I would hope we would take that opportunity.

Streamside management areas is something that was in the text for forestry.

Is that something we can also adopt as an extra performance standard?

Because I know in our neighborhood, when a forestry project was done, it was completely compliant with

What forestry required for the 50 foot buffer where it said 50% retention, but that's stems, not canopy.

So what happened was they took 50% of all the big stuff and left, instead of two foot diameter trees, little whips like this and it's basically wide open to the sky and the erosion that follows.

When you have steep slopes is

pretty horrific.

So if this is part of that MOU that you all may or may not be working on, if there's a way we can incorporate some of the extra details of streamside management areas since it was mentioned already, that would be great.

Next.

I was thrilled to hear what Bart explained about.

And I'm just going to amplify the experiment we had out in the western part of the district.

People put up structures right in the buffer floodplain area.

They were required, after your inspection, to be removed.

But that would be the kind of action which then could bring other mitigation to bear, and the invasive removal, et cetera, could happen.

So in a way, this will hopefully help to improve behavior a lot, because

going along with the education part.

We have other people who are mowing right down to the Meacham's River, which I know is right now in your district, but that's actually the sections that I'm thinking of are still in the White Hall District because we share the river.

But big patios, big swing sets, big picnic tables, all of that will be floating and flying downstream in no time, and those things need to be

removed because it's been a real problem for everybody for a long time when we have been having to tell people, oh, we don't regulate those.

So this is a huge culture shift to get us back to where we were for 30 years before 2014.

So it's not like staff is proposing something that has never been done before.

This is going back to where we had some better controls on things.

I love the Billy Goat Trail analogy.

but there is a big difference between dirt and stone.

in a recent grant process with the James River Association for removal and restoration costs for people who sign up with them for that.

That is, I think, a model that is in use in lots of places.

So there may be some help available for people who do want to get the Ailanthus or the bittersweet out.

And that will create gaps in the spaces, and then other trees will be planted that would do better.

So that is actually existing already.

which is great.

Already talked about the campsites and grills.

Hold on, going down the road.

The Landward 50, the one that jumps out in my mind was back in between 2010 and 2014.

Greenhouse Coffee, which is right behind the Dairy Queen on Crozet Avenue in Crozet, right on an intermittent stream that goes to the Beaver Creek.

they really wanted to take an existing house and put a coffee shop there and they were allowed after a public process with pervious pavers to use the landward 50 for some parking spaces and totally protect and plant more bushes on the stream side 50 so

That's the kind of example that I'm supposed to be thinking about as far as you're concerned, right?

Scott will remember.

And it was a big discussion because, well, this is going to then apply to all the other

loss, which was fine because it's something that has been very helpful to get with case-by-case analysis, which is really important.

And your two questions, I'm all in.

But I did want to just reiterate that the resource management area criteria and the step-by-step adoption are things that I hope we will all continue to be thinking about.

And you have some homework waiting for you in your boxes when you have time.

Thank you.

Yes, and I really appreciate Ann's comments there about the Chesapeake Bay ordinance.

I think it's great if, and I understand, and I'm only going to push back so much, but it is important I think as we go through the next whatever, I'll be pushing up daisies probably, but looking at adopting more of those

items that are in the Chesapeake Bay, those regulations, that we can, I think, would be really important because I just think a lot of it is, this is so critical, right?

So I'm liking the nodding of heads that I'm seeing, right, as we go forward.

Yeah.

Sure, Frank.

...respond to Ms.

Malek's... The pushing up daisies part or the... I did want to say that we do have some RMA components already.

Yeah.

Like flood plains, critical slopes, steep slopes.

Those are included in RMAs and we obviously have ordinances and overlays for those.

And as regarding the SMZs, we adopted the

Chesapeake Bay Standard back in 2019 for SMZs.

So that's been in our ordinance in the WPO for, to remain exempt, they have to provide those SMZs.

Thank you.

I'm looking forward, even if it's after I'm pushing up daisies, that you guys are doing that.

You're a lot younger than I am.

I do like very much the performance standards approach and I really want to applaud you all for that.

And just a couple more things.

I just want to say to Mike that we know that Kudzu is not native even though it's been around for a long time.

It came to us from Asia and from the Pacific Islands and it was brought in as a ground cover

And in my 38 years of living with a VDOT employee, I can tell you that VDOT often, as an aside, would say, we did that to ourselves because we used it a lot to stabilize banks and we wish, the VDOT folks wish, that they'd never even seen it because of the problems it's caused.

But it is not native, although it has been around since the late 1800s.

You said something about it being, because it's been here for a long time.

Well, it is not a native plant having said that.

But I appreciate, I did appreciate what you were saying about definitions.

And thank you for that because I did appreciate that very much.

But as an old VDOT wife, I just had to push back a little bit and say no, VDOT brought that into us.

The other thing I just wanted to ask is, and again not trying to set anybody's hair on fire, but during the

AC44 discussions, we created criteria for not reducing the amount of development area but switching it out.

We have criteria

where at the time at which the amount of land is so small, we need to switch, not do away with the whole process, but to switch it out.

The last I heard we had, we talked about the 5% and I think we were down to 3%, I think that's what we've been told.

I'm interested in if we're

following this process, are we looking at how much more of the development area we're losing because of this type of change or is that not necessary because we're not losing?

And I'm just curious about a little bit of that.

I'm always interested in the size at 5% that I think is now 3%.

We have criteria to switch

development area for rural area, vice versa, as we need to.

So this proposed ordinance does not change the current standards for buffers on development area properties.

The current ordinance does recognize buffers when you're exceeding 10,000 square feet of land disturbance.

Buffers have to be shown.

still for perennial streams or intermittent if you're within a drinking water watershed.

So the only increase, I think, is for those projects under 10,000 square feet.

However, if you've had a site plan that was approved in 2004, which is when the common plan definition was adopted

or a subdivision, that triggers a no lower limit threshold for stormwater management and erosion and sediment control.

So we see smaller developments with a 5,000 square foot addition that they had a site plan maybe 10 years ago and they would still have to

account for stormwater and erosion and sediment control and buffers, if there were buffers on the property.

So I don't know that there's a, I wouldn't say that there's an increase in buffers because most of our projects exceed, even in the development areas, 10,000 square feet that I've, in a majority of them, and they already have buffers on perennial streams.

We're not adding intermittent streams within the development areas, so

Great.

I appreciate that.

Thank you very much, and I really appreciate you understanding my question.

Thank you.

I do think that it would behoove us, this Board, as we go through the next year or few years, that as we're agreeing to some of these changes or moving things around or creating new

Ordinances, that we should be looking at how that 5% is being reduced because we know it's now, I think, the last I heard, 3%.

And I think that there's going to be a need at some point.

And I just think for the county, we need to follow that as to what we're doing because we can't keep doing the same thing for 30 or 40 years.

and expecting the same result.

So anyway, with all of that, thank you very much.

I appreciate it.

Thank you.

I want to make sure I'm correctly understanding how y'all are seeing the point that actually Supervisor Andrews made when asking about clearance of invasives as a standalone activity, right?

If I have a stream just chock-a-block full of bittersweet and I want to go rip it out, that is considered a land disturbance activity.

But it is also considered a land disturbance activity that is permitted under subsection B of 7 and then under B8.

It spells out that it is an exempted disturbance activity but that exempted disturbance activity has additional procedures that are required.

Am I understanding that correctly?

Yes, I believe so.

It's a permitted activity

Can that be a paragraph from a homeowner?

What does that look like?

Because that doesn't have quite as onerous a form as 4.239, the mitigation plan.

It doesn't say mitigation plan.

It just says plan or narrative.

Yeah.

I think the reason that was left fairly general and not set to the same standards as a mitigation plan is those are going to vary wildly depending on the property and the activities.

That gives the RBA some room to establish what's needed.

I'm going to do the thing where I'm going to bring a specific hypothetical in my district again, and I want to make sure I'm getting it right so I can give correct advice.

I have a constituent.

Y'all are probably going to have to picture this exact location.

Across from the intersection of Thomas Jefferson Road and 20, that intersection where we're going to put in a roundabout, on the city side, as in facing the city, there is an intermittent stream that flows parallel to the road, as I'm sure y'all are aware.

There is also a constituent of mine who has a ugly dead tree in that intermittent stream covered in bittersweet that he wants to get rid of.

That would be a disturbance activity, and he would have to write a plan or narrative approved by the riparian buffer administrator and have some probably additional plantings.

You know, moving invasives, I think we could probably do maybe a little better job and make that a little clearer if that's the point of your question.

So I need to look at that more closely with our team to

Clarified.

A narrative to remove a single tree, for instance, wouldn't require necessarily if it's an evasive anything other than to not destroy anything else while you're in there.

So that could be the plan, for instance, as simple as that.

And I think we allow for the narrative for these simple, straightforward, reasonable instances that when something like this would occur.

Thank you for that.

And I wasn't even trying to say that that was unreasonable.

I just wanted to make sure that the process for that individual was fairly streamlined, hence why I kept coming back to the paragraph.

Like, can an email to y'all suffice?

The other thing, kind of in a similar vein, and I caught this while I was sitting here trying to figure out this process.

You also allow for a streamlined process for single-family home developments to not have to submit an independent mitigation plan that can be included in the building permit, either for the home itself or for any other activity that's going to result in disturbance that requires a building permit.

I guess the thing, and this is me.

I'm now going to ask an open-ended question.

because I'm thinking, are there activities that would be land disturbance activities that a single family homeowner would do that aren't exempted that also don't have a building permit associated with them so they wouldn't be able to include their streamlined narrative in the building permit?

Because my worry, just as y'all are sitting there, my worry would be that those people don't have

Yeah, I can look at that.

But the idea is that if they don't have a building permit, they would fall under the other section that does not exempt single family or allow that for single family.

So if we need to maybe have a similar,

and or option, we can do that.

If I wanted to build a treehouse for my kid and it's close enough to the, I don't know that treehouse for a kid requires a building permit.

Maybe it does and that ruins my hypothetical.

But if I wanted to build a treehouse for a kid, that doesn't require a building permit, but it is a land disturbance activity.

do I now have to, I don't have somewhere to put the streamlined.

I wouldn't believe in that instance a treehouse is allowed in the buffer.

So it's a structure.

Possibly I'd have to get our zoning administrator in that.

Let me start by saying I think this is a great thing that we're doing to bring this up, to update and to change it over and to expand the way in which we regulate the buffer zones beyond just land disturbing activities.

But there have been enough questions that I know there's going to be some additional work on this, but also does cry out for helping people understand it by perhaps finding a flyer or something, an education program that helps people get through some of the complexities.

I do understand it to be in many cases, except in land disturbing activities, complaint driven.

and so some of these things you know there will be judgment calls I mean when when you're talking about building in a buffer but you're on a farm that may be something that neighbor will say you know no you shouldn't be doing that but then there'll be other instances where this example was given to me where you know you may be haying a little bit into the buffer but then you know there's another 20 feet to the stream well we're just gonna mow that

That's probably not a permitted activity, is what I'm hearing you say, to mow for no reason other than to, but maybe the argument is that you're mowing there because you don't want all those invasives and other things coming into your hayfield.

In that example, if it's an agricultural practice, we would accept that, for instance.

I think that's a reasonable accommodation, right, as under agriculture.

With regards to other activities, if they're not a listed activity, then they're not permitted.

In land disturbance, we got away from that in this ordinance so that it's not associated with land disturbance.

So it's an activity.

It's other things that are listed in here, uses.

Thank you.

I have no other comments or questions.

You have next steps up.

I'm not sure if we've given you what you need at this point.

They're still smiling, that's good.

Thank you.

Abort with that.

So, welcome back everyone.

I'm not sure where I go from here with this file.

Thank you.

We appreciate your patience.

Absolutely.

We have to get the important work done.

Thank you all for having us here.

This is your second work session of three for the legislative priorities for heading into the 2026 General Assembly session.

In local government, it is that time of year where you're

Wrapping up fiscal year 25 in fiscal year 26 and starting planning for fiscal year 27.

So what year it is is always a bit of a hard question for any of us to answer.

I'm Emily Kilroy, Director of Economic Development, joined by Andy Herrick, our County Attorney, David Blunt, with the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission.

And James Douglas also is a huge participant and just a wonderful colleague on our team that works on the legislative priorities work.

And so we're all here to serve as resources.

We have what looks like 18 slides in this deck.

We expect the presentation to be pretty quick and to leave plenty of time for discussion amongst you all today.

And the hope would be that coming out of today's discussion that we would have sort of a final round of edits that we would be bringing to you next month, at which point you would be in a position to adopt your 2026 legislative priorities.

and then we would be hopefully quickly turning around and having a meeting with the local delegation in order to brief them on that and have a good dialogue about some of the challenges and opportunities for Albemarle.

So with that, I will start the slides.

So today, we're going to talk about 2026 strategy updates since the last time that we were with you about a month ago.

I will then turn it over to Mr. Herrick to walk through the draft documents for 2026, which were part of the packet for today's session.

And then we'll talk about next steps.

And so for 2026 strategy updates, again, last time we were with you about a month ago, we talked about focusing on the local program on Albemarle specific items, really leveraging TJPDC for regional items, and leveraging state organizations to include Virginia Association of Counties, the Virginia Municipal League, and others.

So we are sort of putting the right priorities in the right place for advocacy in the hopes of being successful in that way.

One of the items that we talked about when we were here a month ago was Rivanna Futures.

Last year, your legislative priorities included a budget amendment request for site readiness work at Rivanna Futures.

And when we were here last time, we shared that we were hoping soon to hear from the Commonwealth what the outcome of the Virginia Business Ready Sites grant program would be.

And so towards the end of July, we did hear back from the state that we were successful in an award of $9.7 million for site readiness work there.

Thank you.

We were very excited about that.

Just for context, the amount of requests this year for that program was around $250 million from across the Commonwealth.

The budget for that program this year was $40 million.

And we were successful in getting just under $10 million.

So we're very proud of the work that went into that.

And a huge team of staff participated in that.

So we're very glad to get started on really the next phase of work there, which is moving some dirt around.

The funding that we received will support site readiness, primarily water and sewer utility extensions to serve

The full 105 acres that we've identified as being the most developable within the rezoned area of 172 acres of light industrial and office.

And then also clearing and grading a portion of the property.

Because our application was for a larger amount than our award, so we requested just under $14 million and were awarded $9.7 million, we're still working through adjusting the scope of that project in order to understand what our final deliverable will look like.

The performance period on that is 12 months, and that will begin in the next several weeks again as we refine that scope.

And so based on all of that information,

We have quite a lot of work ahead of us on a relatively aggressive timeline.

And so the recommendation from staff at this point is to not submit a state budget request for this year, but continue some of the work that we've done over the past several years, raising awareness and advocacy among members of the General Assembly locally and across the Commonwealth for this project.

Any questions on that?

Excellent.

OK.

Very good.

Thank you, Ms.

Kilroy.

Andy Herrick, I'm the county attorney.

And if the board doesn't mind, I'm going to stay here in my current position, allow Ms.

Kilroy to stay at the podium.

That way, we can both address your questions simultaneously without us having to switch places at the podium.

Except I'm going to need you to.

There we go.

The next slide.

So as discussed at the prior meeting, we have tried to transition away from some of the documents that the county has used in the past

as being overly lengthy that really have, in staff's opinion, detracted from the effectiveness of it, that their length has made it such that it's been very difficult for the county to focus both the county's attention as well as our legislators attention on the things that are truly important to the county.

That what we're trying to do with this draft of the legislative program is take a philosophy of less is more.

And so part of that has been shifting away from positions

Last year's document had by my count 49 positions and summarizing them with principles instead and this slide tells you a little bit about the differences between the two.

The principles are more of a broad sort of macro articulation of general priority areas whereas positions are more specific, they require more frequent refreshing

They leave gaps in emerging issues not previously considered.

And what we found is just over time that our position statement had sort of followed the course of least resistance.

And over the years, additional positions had been added and added and added without really taking away some of the stuff that no longer applied.

So part of what you'll see in the proposed document that we have is, again, trying to focus and be more succinct on principles, fewer principles rather than more positions.

So if we go to the next slide.

So attachment A to this item in the package is our proposed legislative program.

It consists of legislative priorities, which in turn include both proposed amendments to the code, as well as a budget amendment, as well as again the statement of legislative principles.

If we could have the next slide.

So then breaking down what specifically is in the program, again this is part of attachment A, we're asking for three code amendments.

Based on the board's discussion at our prior work session, we've added the ability to enable localities to enforce the Virginia Landlord Tenant Act.

We heard very clearly from the board that many members of the board considered that to be a priority.

We're asking to expand the authority to use photo speed monitoring devices.

This is a legislative priority of the county in past years and as we detailed it has been introduced but did not make it out of committee in the 2025 General Assembly.

As well as our final proposed amendment in our legislative priorities is to enable a referendum for the one cent sales tax for school division capital projects

As we've discussed previously, this has gotten some traction in the General Assembly in past sessions, made it all the way through both houses, only to be vetoed by the Governor.

But these three items remain on our legislative priorities in the draft program that you see in Attachment A.

We also are proposing a budget amendment for state funding for Biscuit Run Park.

I don't know whether Ms.

Kilroy wants to say anything about that now.

So again, this remains part of our funding request, as Ms.

Kilroy indicated.

We're not recommending that Rivanna Futures continue to be part of an ask this year, but we are requesting that state funding for Biscuit Run Park be continued

So if we go on to the next slide

So then moving past what our priorities are, the attachment A also has a more succinct stating of the county's legislative principles.

We state up front at the beginning of the principles that we are basically supporting the programs of the Virginia Association of Counties, the Virginia Municipal League,

the TJPDC that Mr. Blunt and his team leads in terms of the legislative program.

And there are eight just basic principle statements that are included in this year's proposed program.

We make principle statements regarding broadband to the internet, economic development, growth management, environmental protection, land use and transportation, health and human services, housing, local government finance, public safety, and solid waste.

So it's our recommendation that the board go with some variation of what is attached as attachment A as basically being a nice, sleek, hopefully succinct statement of the county's position.

Having said that, we did also hear from the board at our prior meeting a number of individual requests that the board thought was important.

And if the board is not prepared at this point to move on to just the attachment A, we also did prepare attachment B if the board chooses to continue to have

a separate statement of legislative positions.

Again, these are organized along much the same lines as the legislative principles.

It has been slimmed down at staff's recommendation and at the board's direction.

We've slimmed it down from last year's 49 positions to 28 this year, which is a step in the right direction.

But again, if the board is not comfortable going all the way to just the four-page legislative program,

having legislative positions is also an option if the board wishes to continue with that.

We'll go through our order.

Alright, so was that direction

Basically anything that I've said.

Got it.

So I guess I'll start with the overarching.

I'm fine if you want to do this new approach.

I think it's smart.

I understand it.

Supervisor McKeel likes to say we keep doing things the same way over and over.

And what has it yielded us?

Basically how we've done it.

So I'm happy for a change if for nothing else.

that it puts something different in front of their eyes.

Although I would caution, because I think Vaco deals with this in some ways, we may want, if we're going to do it differently, when I look at these individuals, I guess, well, I'll do an individual piece, but

Being a Dillon rule state, and like if you take housing for example, it says support legislation that promotes the production and preservation of affordable housing, whether through state support or enhanced enabling authority.

Because some of the things being bandied about up there would actually erode local control and force.

and at Vaco, yes, that would expand affordable housing, but the thing that each county says, which is why the state wants to do it, which is usually the local argument against, is well, you can't do this in a one-size-fits-all approach.

What works for a county of Loudoun doesn't work for Albemarle, doesn't work for Smith County.

It's just going to be different.

I can just imagine a state legislator sitting there and going, well, on one hand, you're arguing that you want more local control.

But if I do something to support housing, then you've got to take your medicine and just support that.

So we have to be ready for that.

And I think that we could probably figure out how to nuance that in this document.

But we just have to go there.

or have to contend with that.

I think another good point that was made, and I'm forgetting where the supervisor, what jurisdiction she was from, but she is trying to make the point in one of the committees a week or so ago about the state always trying to use the stick with counties versus trying to use the carrot.

And can we maybe look at that as an approach?

So I don't know if that fits in here or not, or if we could nuance that piece of it.

But the other end of it is if the state does require something, then we have to make sure we state that we're not in favor of unfunded mandates.

So maintain local control.

If you do force something at the state level on the counties, then don't expect the counties to pay for it.

You need to send along the funds with it.

and I think those have to be general.

Then we have to look at each one of these individual items and go, where's the conflict?

So the housing would have been the example that I would offer for that.

If I might, just in response to your statement against unfunded mandates, the local government finance principle does state that we support fully funding state mandates.

Yeah, I see that.

Because then my comments on transportation here in a minute, I think, will be similar to that point.

I feel like what I've been watching VACO I think struggle with is they have these individual topics or issues that they want very specific types of legislation that they're either for or against.

But then the principle of unfunded mandate or local control can be a competition to that specific issue.

So that's where I just like, wow, sometimes you don't

You'd be willing to forego maybe some local control if it got you transportation funding better.

I think it's in the other version where it states how we don't want to have to take on maintaining funding and paying for road projects.

So right there, we're saying, well, we don't want local control for roads.

We want the state to handle it and do the responsibility of it.

So we just have to recognize that.

So that'll take me into the transportation piece.

I don't think there's a way, unless you just did it separately, and I'm not a fan of adding to it, but the biscuit run funding request is a specific budget item that we're going after and we want.

Regardless of where each of us feels that should be as a priority.

as the county, we're saying that's a project, we want that, we did it with Rivanna Futures last year, etc.

The transportation one, I'm going to beat this horse until it's reincarnated and I'm going to beat it to death again.

This is not a matter of Albemarle projects needing to be funded.

This is a matter of I've got too many people.

I've been trying this, been practicing this metaphor.

Too many people at family dinner, I don't have enough dessert.

So I need to provide more dessert.

I can't keep slicing up the pie thinner and thinner and thinner.

Or just say, you don't get any.

So we have to figure that out.

And one of the things I'd be walking into, I'm sure David wouldn't be surprised to hear it, and I'm happy to take this initiative to the planning commission or to the TJPDC board,

is to start saying, well, whether it's how it's stated in here, whatever, we have to figure that out as our own board.

But I'd like to see Albemarle, along with at least the other five PDC jurisdictions, to try to build some coordinated effort to get this point across to the General Assembly, and then even break it out into Sau Campo and some of the other jurisdictions that are around here.

Because this is something that I think

I mean, you just cannot get $30 billion in requests and only put through not even a third of the funding for it.

They've got a problem.

And if multiple jurisdictions could figure out a way to speak to that, I would love whether it's my role at

that the PDC or here or something, it would be great if we could kind of spearhead that initiative as part of our legislative strategy beyond delegates, calls and law for indeeds to show that this is bigger than just our meeting with them and try to build a little bit of support for that.

And David can respond to that now or later at the PDC.

I mean, that's fine.

And I obviously need support of other supervisors for that kind of strategy.

But I think we need to.

you know, hit the transportation piece big, gain that support and I'd love that our packet could somehow state that whether we get that support or not from the other jurisdictions, this is a big bleeping deal and that they need to do something about it.

Thank you.

Supervisor LaPisto-Kirtley.

Could you go back to slide 10, please?

I have some of the same concerns that Supervisor Galloway has regarding I want to support VACO VML.

TJ PDC, but I want to make sure I know what I'm supporting, that once again they're not in conflict with what we want.

I do really, because I don't think everything they present, maybe something, especially Mexico, maybe something that we want to actually support or get into.

I really, really like the broad, the legislative principles, because I think there are going to be

Localities out there that have some really good ideas that we have not thought of or we're not focused on but they could really be beneficial to us and why not support that even though it's not you know we're not looking at it directly but there may be something else that affects us that we could we could also support so I like the whole principle of

issues instead of going to individual, well we like this one but we don't like that one.

I like the whole overall approach, the principal approach.

Our three priorities of course I'm in favor of also.

And regarding transportation, I want to ask Supervisor Galloway and actually Supervisor McKeel,

bringing together other counties that surround us.

I know we're doing the Regional Transit Authority, but is that in your thinking also?

No, I'm saying we call on other jurisdictions to say your funding mechanism for roads in this state is terrible.

and you need to fix it.

And you don't have enough monies coming in the door to do all the projects that are out there, and that's something you have to contend with.

We didn't have enough money to support fire and police in this county, and what did we do?

We had to make a decision.

And we decided to raise taxes to pay for that.

Now, we could have cut $13 million somewhere to pay for it as well, but we made that decision.

So that's the point.

It's like, you've got to contend with that decision.

And whether you want to call it a tax or a fee, because we don't like taxes, so we like to call them fees sometimes.

So I don't care.

Totally agree.

Totally agree.

And could you go to the slide beforehand, 9?

OK, well, no.

Sorry, which one?

I think we're good.

I think I'm good for now.

Thank you.

I appreciate what Ned started this conversation off with the technicalities, because it is tricky.

The legislative principles is a really great idea.

And I was keying in on those four bullets.

as at the beginning as sort of the overarching, these are the most important things.

And then within that, we can work on other stuff.

Because I can just see scholar Ben Valkenburg rubbing his hands like this and going, oh, I got him now.

Because it's just, I think all the things that have been concerning over the last several years are coming back this year.

So we just will have to learn from our previous experience.

My question to you.

David is, are the positions useful for our lobbyists in specific... I would not want them necessarily to be shared with our legislators because I don't think they're going to bother, whereas they ought to be able to manage the one-pager and that would fit on a

pocket card really effectively as the Roanoke people make one that's like three by six and it has big enough print to be able to really be useful and I see people in the other side with those things stuck in their pockets all the time so I know it works and would love for us to copy that but that's the only place where I would like to have an archive

useful archive that at 11 o'clock at night he can reach in his file and go, okay, well this is duress here and here's this bill that I know what to do with rather than just setting them aside because a lot of good work went into those and there may be some good language that could be used to save the day in the last minute.

So that's the only thing I have to be able to keep everything going in its own limited lane.

The transportation, I love this idea.

And if I've had any brains when I was sitting in for you at transportation, I would have done something with it last week.

But we'll have to figure out how to get you to where you need to go to advocate for that in November, and maybe beforehand, so that actually the committee has a chance to send it to Dan Stork ahead of time and James.

see what can be done to get that better on the agenda because I know in the past I have failed miserably when I've waited till November to bring things to put into the program.

It has to be sort of saturated in there first before that can happen.

I will say when devolution was discussed, when Sean Connaughton was transportation secretary and Albemarle was offered a thousand dollars a mile.

Arlington gets $16,000 a mile because they did their contract 50, 100 years ago.

I don't know where.

And Henrico gets nine.

And those are the only two counties to do their own roads, but they got lots of money to do stuff with.

$1,000 a mile would have not done us any $15,000 a year.

I mean, whoopee.

So that didn't help us at all.

But Billy Kiger is always saying there is no state surplus if they don't pay their bills.

So pay your bills first, those unfunded mandates, get education back up where it was in 2008, and the per child and those kinds of things, and then talk about whether you have a state surplus or not.

But anyway, I think this is great progress.

I really like the philosophy of it and the way you presented it.

Thank you.

Yes, just to say right off the top, I really like the new format.

As Ned says, I say all the time, you can't keep doing things the same way.

So this is different and I really appreciate it.

I want to ask one quick question for clarification.

Our priorities, the priorities we had last year, what we were talking about, we had two that were vetoed, right?

by the governor.

There were only two that were... Well, there was the state sales tax or the sales tax referendum was vetoed.

That was vetoed.

So I'm just saying that they actually passed, but they were vetoed by the governor with a different governor.

I'm just saying, right?

I don't believe that, you know, one of the other legislative priorities from last year was the civil forfeiture for false threats.

I don't think a bill was even introduced in that one.

It's okay.

So just those two.

That's good.

That was just for my clarification.

I really agree with the transportation piece,

We have to make the pie bigger, not continue to just slice it in different ways.

And if you think about it, the two biggest fundings, the two biggest areas that have to be funded by everybody in the state, transportation and education.

And anything we can save on transportation and education, we get to use on other things.

And Ned is exactly right.

The way we have been funding transportation since way back when, take it back to the Allen administration, is ridiculous.

So we've got to figure out how to do this differently, and I think that's a good approach, Ned, and so I heartily agree with focusing on transportation.

Having said that, when I talk about education, I just don't want to lose track of the fact that Albemarle County Public Schools, I say this every year, has their own legislative packet, and I just want to make sure that we're sinking at least

those portions somewhat together.

Not that we have to, but I think it's good that we're all on the same page.

I'd like them to be advocating for some of what, and I'm sure they are, for example, the capital improvement program.

And I know that they are.

But it's just good to take a look at what they have, if you all don't mind.

And I guess that's all I have.

Yes, ma'am.

Thank you.

Yeah, I just want to make sure with the new format I am correctly understanding.

That's correct.

So I have maybe a little bit more pause with this than some of my peers, but I understand the principle and I can get behind it.

I guess I'm weighing two concerns.

One is I'm remembering back to when I first started on the board, we had a housing section that was one line and it said we

will support what is conducive with the housing Albemarle plan.

And there was concern that that actually wasn't giving any direction, and it wasn't helping articulate our vision.

So I guess I actually would like some feedback on this from Mr. Blunt, who's actually executing our lobbying.

Is it helpful for us to have, like, particularized policy positions?

Is it helpful for how you do your job to have particularized policy positions?

Or would these principle, like, I would like some feedback before I make a decision on this about, like, how this informs how the work is actually done on the Hill.

Please.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the board, David Blount with TJPDC.

I think you all, you and Ms.

Mallek, have raised a really good point.

I'm not going to give you a definitive answer probably because I think there is value in both having the positions that are specific as well as whether you want to call them principles or just broader statements that provide some flexibility to be able to maneuver in terms of advocating either for or against something.

I think the idea that you're moving toward, if you were to move toward principles, but then also maintain those positions on your own that can be referred to and have some backing of the board that these indeed are the positions.

I think that's fine.

They don't necessarily have to be distributed.

I will tell you that in any given day when I'm in Richmond, I will be reaching out

to Andy, county attorney staff, other members of your staff, and other localities in the PDC region.

If it's not clear to me, based on my work with the boards in the past, based on any adopted position statements that you may have, and also based on what's included in the regional legislative program, I will reach out to determine what is the position that you would like to take on this bill.

That may not be the answer necessarily to specific questions, but I think there is value in being able to be flexible, have principles that will allow you to operate in a very hectic, as you know, the very hectic pace of the General Assembly.

But also knowing that either you have them or you can determine through consultation what a particular position may be on a bill.

I think going back and reviewing statements that were in the position is a very good idea.

In fact, I constantly, every year when I come around to looking at the regional legislative program, try to do that as well.

Because things get in there, and then they just stay in there.

And it may, 20 years ago, have been something that was pretty darn important, and we wanted to make sure we had a position on.

But maybe it's not even anywhere in the conversation now.

That is.

And I just want to reflect to the board, I see a possibility if we straight up 86 attachment B, I see a strong possibility for like a principal agent problem, where the will that is carried out on our behalf on the Hill is actually not consistent with our own.

I can give you a very specific example.

which is if we get rid of Part B, you know, board, that I am in favor of not a study but of enabling legislation related to rent stabilization at the local level.

Our principals call for that and would enable support for that.

while we're saying specifically that we want to study as a board.

So that would introduce a principal agent problem if we did not have this, because Mr. Blunt would be in the position of having to determine whether or not that would be something this board would accept, would be reaching out to Andy or Emily for the board's will on that.

I see that as concerning.

That's what I'm thinking about.

That's what I'm thinking about.

But I'm just saying, if we don't have this list, literally anything that's implicated in this list that embraces almost every topic and has a kind of direction on how we feel about them, but embraces almost every topic, that

that puts our representative in the position of having to interpret this and think.

I mean, it makes us all have a position one on almost every bill in the General Assembly, which makes it so he doesn't have direction on how to use his time.

and two it makes it so that he has to interpret like normally like maybe three vague principles, broad principles, let's say broad principles in any given topic to determine where the board's heart is and work with you know counsel to determine where the board's heart is who might have a specific piece of knowledge about the board but might not right so that gives me concern and I would also flag

You know, this is an ongoing bugbear of mine, but I think specific bill positions should be like a channeling function for our community, right?

They're not, because we have a political disengagement problem, but like we should be getting, I would hope, I would want us to be getting from membership work like League of Women Voters, Sierra Club, NAACP,

in a more engaged citizenry should be giving us what they think our legislative position should be.

I would expect that.

Well, I mean, I don't even have a position statement from you.

I know how you feel, but I don't have one.

And I think if we are only taking principles that permanently closes the door on this thing, I do think we want to leave the door open for and kind of inculcate in our citizenry this opportunity for engagement, even if it's not being used.

That's just me.

You all can reflect on that how you want, but that's kind of my position.

I could see maybe the value in having this

Bea while I'm handing our delegation rather than this list of things.

But I think without this list of things being approved and ratified by the board, we're in a problematic position.