By Heather Michon
Correspondent
The Fluvanna County Board of Supervisors prepared for potential storm impacts at its Wednesday meeting (Jan. 21), approving a Declaration of Local Emergency amid forecasts of heavy snow, possible ice, and several days of below-freezing temperatures.
The declaration, which took effect at midnight Jan. 24, allows the county managers to activate emergency shelters, coordinate with fire and rescue agencies, and seek reimbursement or assistance from state and federal authorities if needed. Officials cited forecasts calling for up to 12 inches of snow, the potential for ice, and a prolonged stretch of sub-freezing temperatures.
Burn building
As part of its focus on public safety, the board also approved a contract for a containerized live-fire training structure, a modular “burn building” that will allow local firefighters to conduct realistic training exercises within the county, rather than relying on facilities in neighboring jurisdictions.
Supervisors approved a $730,305 construction contract with Draeger Inc. for the structure.
The burn building has been a long-running discussion, marked by fits and starts over many years. As the board approved the contract, fire chiefs seated in the back row of the meeting room waved their hands in a brief, quiet celebration.
Performance grant for coves at
Monticello
Supervisors also approved a performance incentive grant payment for the Coves at Monticello affordable workforce housing development, in accordance with a development and performance agreement approved by the board in March 2022.
Under that agreement, the county committed to providing semiannual grants through the Fluvanna Economic Development Authority based on a percentage of the real estate taxes generated by the project’s increased assessed value once certificates of occupancy were issued.
County officials said the development is certified as workforce housing, and property managers are required to periodically review and certify tenant income information to confirm eligibility for reduced rent levels. This information is shared with both local and state agencies.
The incentive is tied specifically to the difference between the property’s base assessed value and its post-development assessment.
The first real estate tax bill meeting the terms of the agreement was issued for taxes due June 5, 2025, and county officials said the developer has paid that bill and met all other milestone requirements outlined in the agreement.
The stipulated base assessed value of the property under the agreement was $71,439. The current assessed value is $16,926,992, resulting in an increase of $16,855,552.86. At the county’s real estate tax rate of 75 cents per $100 of assessed value, that increase generates an annual performance incentive grant of $126,416.65.
The grant is paid in two installments. Supervisors approved a first-half payment of $63,208.33, with the second-half payment of $63,208.32 to be issued later in the year.
Workforce housing is intended to serve residents such as teachers, first responders, and other working professionals whose incomes make finding housing in the local market difficult, but who do not qualify for traditional subsidized housing programs.
Tenaska
Tenaska’s proposed Expedition Generation project was not on the agenda but was a frequent topic during public comment and later board discussion.
During public comment, Tracey Smith told supervisors she had spent the previous day at the General Assembly lobbying for what she described as nonpartisan good-governance measures, including ranked-choice voting and campaign finance reform. Smith said the experience underscored what she sees as a broader pattern in which corporate interests seek to protect profits at the expense of public well-being, a dynamic she argued is also at play in the proposed Tenaska project.
Smith urged supervisors to remember that they represent county residents, not corporate shareholders, and said opposition to the project has been unfairly characterized. She argued that decisions made now will shape Fluvanna for decades, long after current board terms end, and said residents will live with the consequences long after elected officials leave office.
“This is a decision for the people of Fluvanna,” Smith said. “Years from now, when people ask how this happened, the answer won’t be Tenaska. It will be that the people of Fluvanna spoke, and the people elected to represent them chose not to listen.”
Ray Bassi criticized comments made during the board’s Jan. 7 joint work session, saying they minimized the real-world impacts of industrial noise on nearby residents and created the perception that approval of the Tenaska project was a foregone conclusion.
Bassi argued that characterizing noise concerns as subjective or an unavoidable byproduct of growth dismisses quality-of-life impacts and shifts the burden onto residents rather than addressing them through enforceable policy.
Bassi urged the board to adopt specific, measurable safeguards if the project moves forward, including enforceable noise standards using one-hour equivalent sound levels and maximum sound thresholds, continuous independent monitoring with publicly accessible data, and clear enforcement mechanisms. He said violations should trigger required mitigation plans, escalating penalties for repeated exceedances, and a defined path to suspension or revocation if limits cannot be met.
During new business, Supervisor Chris Fairchild (Cunningham) raised concerns stemming from the most recent Planning Commission meeting, saying residents were confused about why the applicant was allowed to speak after public comment had concluded.
Fairchild said he attended the meeting and heard repeated concerns from citizens who believed applicants were given multiple opportunities to address the commission while members of the public were not. He noted that current practices are not dictated by state law but have developed over time and suggested that the county document those procedures more clearly so residents better understand how hearings are conducted.
County Attorney Dan Whitten said the county is reviewing those practices and exploring ways to align Planning Commission procedures more closely with those of the Board of Supervisors.
Whitten said applicant rebuttals following public hearings have historically been treated as question-and-answer periods rather than opportunities to introduce new material, but acknowledged that differences in practice and changes in state law have contributed to confusion. He said staff could present potential bylaw language to clarify the process and improve consistency between the two bodies.
