Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Fluvanna supervisors back limit on utility rate filings, oppose bills they say would preempt local authority on solar and housing
Loading...
Summary
At its Feb. 4 meeting, the Fluvanna County Board of Supervisors voted to support HB422, which would limit how frequently a water utility may file for rate increases, and to oppose six state measures they said would constrain local control over solar siting and housing rules; several votes were unanimous while two drew dissent.
The Fluvanna County Board of Supervisors on Feb. 4 adopted a set of resolutions expressing the county’s positions on multiple 2026 Virginia General Assembly bills.
The board unanimously approved a resolution supporting House Bill 422, which would prohibit a public utility authorized to furnish water or water and sewer service from filing an application for a rate increase more frequently than once in any three‑year period, subject to exceptions. The board’s resolution notes there have been four rate increases by Aqua Virginia, Inc. in the last 10 years and that the change would affect roughly 15,000 Fluvanna County residents.
The Board also voted to oppose several measures that County Attorney Dan Whitten said would preempt local land‑use authority or change permitting standards for utility‑scale solar and related infrastructure. The Board approved resolutions opposing House Bill 891/Senate Bill 443 (making battery energy storage systems by‑right on parcels previously approved for utility‑scale solar), House Bill 711/Senate Bill 347 (standardized criteria for special exceptions for ground‑mounted solar), House Bill 1091 (expanding the Right to Farm definition to include electrical production from solar panels), House Bill 816 (requiring by‑right multifamily on much commercial/business land), and House Bill 804 (a state housing‑stock increase mandate).
Votes were recorded for each resolution. The motions to oppose HB891/SB443, HB1091, and HB816 passed unanimously. The resolution opposing HB711/SB347 passed 4–1 (Chair Tony O’Brien cast the lone dissenting vote). The resolution opposing HB804 passed 3–2 (Vice Chair Timothy M. Hodge and Chair O’Brien voted no).
In discussion, county staff and the county attorney framed the positions as defending local authority over siting, notice and host‑siting negotiation processes, and comprehensive‑plan conformity requirements. The board directed staff to finalize draft letters of support or opposition for submission to the county’s General Assembly contacts.
Votes at a glance: • Support: HB422 — A RESOLUTION TO SUPPORT HOUSE BILL 422 (approved 5–0) • Oppose: HB891/SB443 — A RESOLUTION TO OPPOSE HOUSE BILL 891 AND SENATE BILL 443 (approved 5–0) • Oppose: HB711/SB347 — A RESOLUTION TO OPPOSE HOUSE BILL 711 AND SENATE BILL 347 (approved 4–1) • Oppose: HB1091 — A RESOLUTION TO OPPOSE HOUSE BILL 1091 (approved 5–0) • Oppose: HB816 — A RESOLUTION TO OPPOSE HOUSE BILL 816 (approved 5–0) • Oppose: HB804 — A RESOLUTION TO OPPOSE HOUSE BILL 804 (approved 3–2)
The resolutions will be transmitted as formal statements of the Board’s positions to legislators and to the county’s legislative contacts per the Board’s procedures. The minutes do not record verbatim quotes from individual supervisors during these votes.