Board of Supervisors Regular First Meeting   12/3/2025

Thank you for your service today and all days on behalf of our County.

If all present, could now stand as you are able and join us in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Thank you, and if you would please now join us in a moment of silence.

It's a separate meeting.

So we first have to adopt the final agenda and I'm looking for a motion from the board if there's no changes.

So moved.

Second.

Without objection, I'd prefer to call the roll.

Mr. Galloway?

Yes.

Aye.

We'll go through our speaking order for today of Supervisor LaPisto-Kirtley.

And I really, really love it.

Supervisor Pruitt.

I do want to very quickly pull up information about the Scottsville holiday happening if you'll come back around to me at the end.

Supervisor McKeel?

and I'm sure there's a recording somewhere if you want to listen.

Following the ceremony at the Dogwood, I will lay a wreath at the memorial here on the county office building site and then at the memorial site in Earliesville and all are welcome to join in and thank you very much.

So one's at Western Albemarle tomorrow.

Yeah, so that's great.

If nothing further, Supervisor Pruitt.

Christmas illumination, tree illumination of six.

And Vice Chair McKeel will read the rules and introduce the speaker.

Sure.

Our first speaker is Alicia Linehan

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Gary Grant.

Welcome.

Most of your 2026 legislative positions just want to tax and take more of our money.

Excellent.

I'm going to give this research to the county clerk.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Without objection, the clerk will call the roll.

Aye.

Thank you.

Okay.

Mr. Davidson, sorry.

Staff's recommendation is after the board holds the public hearing to recommend that you adopt the resolution in attachment B and with that I will now turn it over to the board chair for any questions and to hold the public hearing.

Supervisor LaPisto-Kirtley?

No questions, thank you.

Supervisor Pruitt?

No questions, thank you.

Supervisor McKeel?

No questions.

The matter is back before the board.

I believe the resolution that we're looking for is in attachment B. I move we approve resolution for additional fiscal year 2026 appropriations, which is attachment B. Second.

Without objection, call the roll.

Aye.

Thank you, Mr. Davidson.

Welcome.

Then I will ask for a vote on the proposed ordinance on my next slide.

Supervisor Acusto-Kirtley.

Supervisor Pruitt.

Professor Miller.

When do they close?

Of 2026?

Yes.

OK.

So big press push in March and September?

OK.

Because I know we sort of did that at the last minute and the exact next year, and I think it made a difference.

Yeah, and we'll include those limits because now that it's not going to be in the ordinance, they're going to be seeking out that information in any kind of media we can send out, so absolutely.

Thank you for your help with this.

You're welcome.

Are those both done on a total based on both the assessed value changes and the number of new people being eligible for the program, or is the $100,000

That's what I wanted to clarify is that the assessment increases are not going to do that.

That's additional and on top of that every year the assessments cost will be more.

That's exactly right.

I mean, I'm just trying to understand the savings of doing it this way versus having us revisit.

That's how that lines up.

Was that it?

Yeah, Kate does a great little, yeah.

Sure.

Thank you.

Yeah, I'd be happy to.

They're not eligible.

because their asset is too big.

Because their assets are too big even though their assets are their only way of generating any income because that's what they retired on as their IRA or whatever it was.

And the value of their home is primarily that and then in order to value it.

Well the value of the home is not included in the calculation.

And that's always a problem.

Because your property, your primary residence property, is not included in the net worth calculation.

That's correct.

With that, I think we're looking for a motion, unless there are further comments.

I would be thrilled to make the motion.

OK, please.

And I move that the board adopt the proposed ordinance in attachment A. Second.

Without objection, the clerk will call the roll.

Aye.

Appreciate it.

Welcome.

I'm happy to take any questions now, any clarifications on any of that.

Supervisor Pruitt.

Is that correct?

So they've had that kind of briefly explained to them, but they'll get a more detailed letter once you all take action explaining fully their options.

The thing that this is to give them notice for in addition to just not a nasty, you know, several tens of thousands dollar bill is it gives them time to establish normally, if they are equipped for it, some kind of agricultural exemption in lieu of so that they can develop their land for that purpose over five years and there will not be a rollback because it will rollback when they get out at the end of the five years to an agricultural use which is similarly exempted.

Great.

Supervisor McKeel.

I really don't have any questions other than, well I guess it's a question for how we're going to deal with these.

We have one ordinance, attachment A. Yes, we're recommending one motion for all three districts.

Thank you.

Is that an option for them?

No small act of development rights.

I can let Pete expound on that.

I don't know if these three forestry parcels were specifically those, but there are some that we did that activity on in order to clean it up based on these rules.

But you have to go on with the exact wording of what the board adopted, which is what we have to deal with tonight.

Yes, ma'am.

Without objection, if the clerk will call the roll.

Aye.

My understanding is you did have something to mention about the AFD's other actions, or should I just make a comment?

You're welcome to have any discussion you want to.

open space when they have no conservation uses otherwise.

Was there language on the table?

It was in our packet.

Mr. Chair, that was attachment B to the staff report was the recommendation of the AFDE committee.

The problem is that this doesn't specify what those criteria would be but there would be a way to try to whether staff could come up with some criteria by which those parcels that don't have development rights could remain in the district if they're not trying to use open space.

I will sit down with Pete and we'll struggle through this some more and see if there's anything that they can bring forward and hopefully others will come up with some ideas too.

Is there a minimum lot size for an open space use generally?

But you may, under certain circumstances, aggregate various parcels together in order to meet that 20 acres, if they're all owned by the same owner.

And they have to be contiguous or not?

They do if they're outside an ag forest district.

Do the non-contiguous parcels each have to have their own discrete, unexausted development rights, or does there have to be an unexausted development right between them?

Every parcel that is in an ag force district needs to have its own development rights.

That's one of the reasons why I brought it up is that any parcel, for example, in the baseball district that's less than 20 acres and doesn't have any small lot development rights is being thrown out even if they never could have been eligible for open space anyway.

As far as the financial benefit.

And that would defeat the purpose again.

Yes, sir.

So I appreciate the dilemma.

That was one of the thoughts I just had.

There's not a tangible thing.

I'm in a domain with respect to parcels that are in an ag forestal district.

In terms of community, there are no kind of tangible community benefits specifically, but physical benefits to landowners, yes.

Some of those benefits are just a sense of community, so you're correct.

In saying that, to integrate that, I was incredibly sympathetic to that when it first came before us.

Some of those people came to speak at the Ag Forestal Committee meeting, so I was aware there that they felt that they were being forced out of something that they wanted to be participant in, regardless of tax benefit.

So anyway, that was just something that I wanted to mention to get out there for people to be thinking about.

Thank you.

I don't know if it's an easy lift from staff, but it would be something I'd be comfortable putting on a work list.

Is that a yes from Supervisor McKeel?

I just want to know more about it.

I'm going to say that there are four current board members who are interested in seeing if there's anything further that could be done, but I recognize that not all four will be on the board when this would happen.

It's just many of them have graduated on to conservation easements at this point because they've been through the learning process and graduated on to the permanent status.

Thank you.

Supervisor LaPisto-Kirtley.

Thank you.

Supervisor Pruitt.

Thank you.

Supervisor McKeel.

Thank you.

Supervisor Mallek.

Thank you.

And I have nothing further, except I appreciate your indulgence in that last discussion.

Good evening.