HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-05-09
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
TENTATIVE
MAY 9, 2007
1 :30 P.M., AUDITORIUM
COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING
1 . Call to Order.
2. Proclamation recognizing May 19, 2007 as Blue Star Salute Day.
3. Consent Agenda:
3.1 Approval of Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE) Ranking Order for FY 2006-07
Applicant Class.
3.2 Approve Child Care Subsidy Advocacy.
3.3 Requested FY 2007 Appropriations: Additional Funding for Sallyport Project.
4. 1 :35 p.m. _ 2:45 p.m. - FY 2008 Operating and Capital Budgets.
5. 2:45 p.m. _ 3:45 p.m. - FY 2008-2013 Capital Improvements program (CIP).
Recess - 3:45 p.m.
6. 4:00 p.m. _ 5:00 p.m. _ Discussion: proffer Policy (continued from May 2, 2007).
7. 5:00 p.m. - 5:30 p.m. - Closed Session.
8. Certify Closed Session.
."
_,"i.
9.
Adjourn.
-
ACTIONS
Board of Supervisors Meeting of Mav 9, 2007
May 11 , 2007
AGENDA ITEM/ACTION ASSIGNMENT
1. Call to Order.
. Meeting was called to order at 1 :37 p.m. by the
Chairman, Mr. Boyd. All BOS members were
present. Also present were Bob Tucker, Larry
Davis and Meaqan Hoy.
2. Recognitions:
. Proclamation recognizing May 19, 2007 as Blue (Attachment 1)
Star Salute Day. MOTION was made to adopt
the proclamation.
3.1. Approval of Acquisition of Conservation Easements
(ACE) Ranking Order for FY 2006-07 Applicant Ches Goodall/David Benish: Proceed as
Class. approved.
. APPROVED the following recommendations by
the ACE Committee:
. identified the Clayton, Anderson,
Strawberry Hill Farm, McDaniel, Sacre,
Barksdale and Rives properties as those on
which it desires conservation easements;
. approved the proposed final ranking order
for Route 7 (FY 2006-07); and
. authorized appraisals for the Clayton,
Anderson, Strawberry Hill Farm, McDaniel,
Sacre, Barksdale and Rives properties.
3.2 Approve Child Care Subsidy Advocacy.
. AUTHORIZED the Advisory Board to advocate Kathy Ralston: Proceed as approved.
for legislation or budget language that supports
increased state funding for child car subsidies
for low income workinq families.
3.3 Requested FY 2007 Appropriations Clerk: Forward signed appropriation form to
. APPROVED FY 2007 Appropriation #2007077. Finance and OMB.
Non-Agenda Item OMB/Planninq: Proceed as approved.
. By a vote of 5: 1, VOTED to continue to donate
one cent of the tax rate to the ACE Proqram.
4. FY 2008 Operating and Capital Budgets OMB: Proceed as approved.
. MOVED to approve the following initiatives:
Reserve from Health Insurance Reductions,
CTS (Board Initiative), 2 Police Officers, 5 East
Rivanna Personnel, Child Welfare Division
Supervisor, Child Welfare Division Office
Associate, Assistant County Attorney, Zona
Latina, and a Rural Area Support Position.
. CONSENSUS for staff to revisit the County's Clerk: Schedule on agenda when staff ready to
T JPED membership in June. move forward.
5. FY 2008-2013 Capital Improvements Program OMB/Tom Foley: Proceed as approved.
(CIP).
. MOVED forward as follows:
. followed staff's recommendation to delay
the construction of a permanent station at
Pantops and to establish a temporary
station in FY 09;
. to maintain $250,000 in FY 08 budget for a
recycling center and to have a work session
I
in the summer to study the policy issues
relating to recycling centers; and
. agreed to delay by one year the funding for
design of the Building Services
office/warehouse facility until further
information is provided back to the Board
for review.
. ADOPTED the attached budget resolution. Clerk: Forward adopted resolution to Finance,
OMB and appropriate individuals.
(Attachment 2)
The Board recessed at 4:10p.m. and reconvened
at 4:25 p.m.
6. Discussion: Proffer Policy (continued from May 2,
2007.
. SCHEDULED work session for June 20, 2007
at 2:00 p.m.
7. Closed Session.
. At 5:47, p.m., the Board went into closed
session to consider appointments to boards,
committees, and commissions, and the
appointment of a staff position, and to consult
with legal counsel and staff regarding specific
matters requiring legal advice relating to an
inter-jurisdictional aqreement.
8. Certify Closed Session. Clerk: Prepare appointment letters for
. At 6:31 p.m., the Board reconvened into open Chairman's signature, update Boards and
session and certified the closed session. Commissions book and update webpage.
Boards and Commissions: Appointments.
. REAPPOINTED M. Waltine Eubanks to the
Advisory Council on Aging with said term to
expire May 31,2009.
. REAPPOINTED Rod Gentry to the Workforce
Investment Board as an at-large member with
said term to expire June 30, 2010.
. APPOINTED Emily Bardeen to the Workforce
Investment Board with said term to expire June
30, 2010.
. APPOINTED William M. Letteri as Director of
Facilities Development effective June 5, 2007.
9. Adjourn.
. At 6:32 p.m. the meeting was adjourned until
June 6,2007.
/ewc
Attachment 1 - Proclamation - Blue Star Salute Day
Attachment 2 - Budget Resolution
2
ATTACHMENT 1
BLUE STAR SALUTE DA Y
WHEREAS, throughout the history of the United States of America the sacrifices necessary to maintain
our liberty and freedom have consistently been borne by citizen soldiers; and
WHEREAS, countless men and women of our great county have proudly worn the uniform of the United
States Armed Forces; and
WHEREAS, many of our fellow citizens are serving today in the war on terror as members of the active
military, National Guard or Reserves; and
WHEREAS, on Armed Forces Day 2007, it is appropriate as individuals and families to reflect upon the
sacrifices of our fellow citizens and to celebrate their dedication; and
WHEREAS, the citizens of the County of Albemarle desire to honor and acknowledge those who serve in
uniform for their sacrifice and preservation of our American way of life;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL VED, that, I, Kenneth C. Boyd, Chairman, on behalf of the Albemarle
County Board of Supervisors do hereby recognize
Saturday, May 19,2007
as
BLUE STAR SALUTE DAY
in the County of Albemarle and urge all citizens of this community to honor our citizens
who are serving in the United States Armed Forces by joining in the festivities of this
day.
3
-
ATTACHMENT 2
BUDGET RESOLUTION
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia:
1) That the budget for the County for the Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 2007 is made up of the
County Executive's Recommended Budget document and the amendments made by the Board of
Supervisors as detailed in Attachment B of this Executive Summary.
2) That the budget for the County for the Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 2007 is summarized as
follows:
Administration
Judicial
Public Safety
General Services
Human De\elopment (including PVCC)
Parks, Recreation, and Culture
Community De\elopment
Refunds/Other
City/County Re\enue Sharing
General GO\ernment Capital Projects
Stormwater Impro\ements
General GO\ernment Debt Service
Education - Capital Projects
Education - Debt Service
Education - School Operations
Education - Self-Sustaining Funds
Resef\e - Health Insurance Reductions
Board Resef\eS
TOTAL
FY 07/08 Adopted
$10,459,959
3,662,401
29,330,505
4,522,698
23,602,186
6,246,526
10,743,991
648,340
13,212,401
14,139,592
725,000
2,253,761
14,128,000
12,467,283
143,988,884
14,954,196
249,785
426,334
$305,761,842
3) That the budget for the County for the Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 2007 as described in 1) and
2) above be approved.
4
Department Position Count
FY02 - FY07
Increase
FY 01/02 FY 02103 FY 03/04 FY 04/05 FY 05/06 FY 06/07 FY02-FY07
Board of Supervisors 3.00 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 (0.50)
County Executive* 10.50 12.00 13.00 13.50 13.50 14.50 4.00
Human Resources** 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 3.00
County Attorney 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 7.00 1.00
Finance 52.00 52.00 50.00 51.00 51.00 51.00 (1.00)
Information Technology 20.00 20.00 20.00 21.00 21.00 23.00 3.00
Board of Elections/Registrar 4.60 4.60 4.60 5.60 5.60 5.60 1.00
Circuit Court 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Clerk of Circuit Court 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 11.00 1.00
Sheriff 21.00 21.00 21.00 21.00 23.00 23.00 2.00
Commonwealth Attorney 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 9.00 1.00
Police 129.50 1 31.50 132.00 1 36.00 140.00 147.50 18.00
Fire/Rescue 32.00 38.00 41.00 49.00 53.00 75.00 43.00
General Services*** 17.75 18.75 27.75 27.75 34.75 38.50 20.75
Social Services 88.00 88.10 87.10 90.60 91.60 97.20 9.20
Parks & Recreation 16.00 16.00 16.00 18.00 18.00 19.00 3.00
Community Development*** 83.50 85.50 80.00 81.00 81.00 84.00 0.50
Housing 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 8.00 8.00 (1.00)
Soil/Water Conservation 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
* In FY 03/04, a fiscal impact planner position was moved from Community Development to the Office of Management and
Budget.
** This includes employees dedicated solely to local govemment. In addition, HR has employees who are classified in the School
Division. These employees spend approximately 25% of their time performing human resource services for local government.
*** The Community Development and General Services departments were part of an organizational change in FY 03/04. This
change is reflected beginning in the FY 03/04 column.
=?E/V~+T O~.~tEJ~
AGenda Item,: tf
Clerk's In
5/9/07
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE) Ranking
Order for FY 2006-07 Applicant Class
AGENDA DATE:
May 9, 2007
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request approval to appraise six properties from FY 2006-
07 ACE applicant pool
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X
INFORMATION:
STAFF CONTACTCS):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Kamptner, Cilimberg, Benish
and Goodall
ATTACHMENTS: YES
LEGAL REVIEW: YES
REVIEWED BY:
/--
I
BACKGROUND:
Pursuant to sections A.1-11 O(G) and A.1-11 O(H) of the ACE ordinance, the Board of Supervisors reviews the list of
ranked parcels submitted by the ACE Committee and identifies on which parcels it desires conservation easements.
Each conservation easement identified by the Board of Supervisors to be purchased is appraised by an independent
appraiser chosen by the County.
The Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE) Program received nine (9) applications for the October 31,2006,
Round 7 deadline (FY 2006-07). Three of these applications (Rives, Rushia, and Jensen/Barnett) were for re-enrolled
properties from last year's application cycle. Due to budget constraints, the ACE Program was unable to acquire
easements on these properties last year. Since the recent application deadline, staff has evaluated each of the Round
7 properties according to the ranking evaluation criteria identified in the ACE ordinance. These objective criteria
include: open space resources; threat of conversion to developed use; natural, scenic and cultural resources; and
County fund leveraging from outside sources. Based on the results of the evaluation, staff has determined eligibility and
a "final" ranking order for applicants from Round 7 of the ACE Program (Attachment A). These results were presented
to the ACE Committee at its April 17, 2007 meeting. A general description of these properties is provided in Attachment
B.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 2.1 - "Protect and/or preserve the County's rural character"
Goal 2.2 - "Protect and/or preserve the County's natural resources"
DISCUSSION:
The evaluation of the nine applications from Round 7 indicates that all nine (9) properties scored high enough to be eligible
for ACE funding. Although only $1 ,387,543 of funding has been appropriated for this class plus a projected carryover of
$29,066 from the previous budget cycle, a new source of matching funds has become available from the Office of
Farmland Preservation. Depending on the number of local programs that apply for the $4,250,000 of new funding, the
ACE Program could receive up to $1,200,000. To receive funding, a locality must provide: 1) certification of the local
program elements based on the model elements in "A Model Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) Program for
Virginia"; and 2) certification of the amount of matching funds that the locality will provide for that fiscal year. Albemarle
County can satisfy these certification requirements.
The ACE Committee believes potential funding may exist to acquire at least 5 or 6 of the 9 eligible properties. Based on
the final ranking order and eligibility status of the Round 7 applicants, the ACE Committee recommends that the Board of
Supervisors approve appraisals for the seven (7) highest ranked properties: Clayton, Anderson, Strawberry Hill Farm,
McDaniel, Sacre, Barksdale, and Rives. Although the total potential ACE budget for FY 2006-07 is insufficient for
AGENDA TITLE:
Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE) Ranking Order for FY 2006-07 Applicant Class
May 9,2007
Page 2
purchasing easements on all seven properties, the ACE Committee believes it is prudent to obtain appraisals on more
properties than funding will allow, in the event that additional funding becomes available or some higher ranking applicants
withdraw their application from the Program.
BUDGET IMPACT:
There is no additional request for funding related to this action. The future funding for the purchase of these potential
conservation easements would come from both the CIP-Planning-Conservation budget (line-item #9010-81010-580409)
and the CIP- Tourism-Conservation budget (line-item #9010-72030-580416), a budget previously approved by the Board to
fund ACE properties with "tourism value". Funding provided by the County would be supplemented by grants from the
Office of Farmland Preservation. Additional sources of outside funding that may be available to the ACE Program include
the Office of Farmland Preservation and the Preservation Trust Fund.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors, as recommended by the ACE Committee:
1) Identify the Clayton, Anderson, Strawberry Hill Farm, McDaniel, Sacre, Barksdale and Rives properties as those
on which it desires conservation easements;
2) Approve the final ranking order for Round 7 (FY 2006-07) as proposed in Attachment A; and
3) Authorize appraisals for the Clayton, Anderson, Strawberry Hill Farm, McDaniel, Sacre, Barksdale and Rives
properties
ATTACHMENTS
A - Rankinq Order of ACE Applicants from Round 7 (FY 2006-07)
B - General Description of Round 7 ACE Properties
Attachment "A"
Rankin!!: Order of ACE Applicants from Round 7 (FY 2006-07)
(15 points are needed to qualify for ACE Funding)
Applicant
Clayton, Jeff
(Crozet)
Strawberry Hill Farm
(Cismont)
McDaniel, James
(Scottsville)
Anderson, Margaret
(Carters Bridge)
Sacre, Ruby
(Barboursville)
Barksdale, John
(North Garden)
Rives, Barclay
(Cismont)
Rushia, Ed & Chris
(Crozet)
J ensen/Barnett
(White Hall)
Totals
Tax Map (Acreage)
TM 56, Parcel 69
TM 50, Parcel 45
TM 135, Parcel15A
TM 135, Parcel 18
TM 135, Parcel 19 "A"
TM 135, Parcel 19 "B"
TM 135, Parcel 22
TM 135, Parcel22E
Total
TM 10 1, Parcel 60
TM 36, Parcel 6
TM 100, Parcel 34
TM 65, Parcel 93Al
TM 65, Parcel 94
TM 65, Parcel 94 "A"
TM 65, Parcel 94 "B"
TM 65, Parcel 95
TM 65, Parcel 95A
TM 65. Parcel 121
Total
TM 39, Parcel 27
TM 40, Parcel 8
9 Applications
(228.500 acres)
(329.920 acres)
( 0.902 acres)
( 24.371 acres)
( 87.481 acres)
( 24.785 acres)
( 39.720 acres)
( 15.715 acres)
(192.974 acres)
(186.760 acres)
( 66.360 acres)
(153.010 acres)
( 3.811 acres)
( 3.000 acres)
( 1.250 acres)
( 15.950 acres)
( 4.872 acres)
( 3.978 acres)
( 38.840 acres)
( 71.701 acres)
( 86.700 acres)
( 91.070 acres)
1,467.719 acres
Points
Travel/Tourism Value*
47.08 points
no
46.91 points
yes
45.27 points
no
42.55 points
no
25.51 points
yes
23.09 points
no
23.01 points
yes previous applicant
22.50 points
yes previous applicant
15.90 points
no previous applicant
* Travel/tourism value is determined by the presence of specific elements from the ranking evaluation criteria
making certain properties eligible for funding from the transient lodging tax. The specific criteria include the
following: contains historic resources or lies in a historic district; lies in the primary Monticello viewshed; adjoins
a Virginia scenic highway, byway or entrance corridor; lies on a state scenic river; provides mountaintop
protection.
Rankin!! Evaluation Criteria & Points Determination
Owner:
Property:
Jeff Clayton
TM 56, Parcel 69
(228.500 acres)
10 DivR's + 5 DevR's = 15 DR's
Ranking Criteria Determination Source for Points Points
Criteria A.l 6,743 feet on Beaver Creek Res. plats/County overlay maps 15.49
Criteria A.2 228.500 acres RE Assessor's Office 4.57
Criteria B.l no landowner 0.00
Criteria B.2 no landowner 0.00
Criteria B.3 10 DR's eliminated Zoning & Planning Departments 5.00
Criteria C.l no County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.2 yes landowner 5.00
Criteria C.3 1,543 feet on Route 240 County tax map/plats 3.54
Criteria C.4 DHR 2-257 PEC/Monticello viewshed maps 3.00
Criteria C.5 James spinymussel DCR Division of Natural Heritage 2.00
Criteria C.6 124 acres County Soil Survey 2.48
Criteria C. 7 SF Rivanna River Watershed County overlay maps 3.00
and Beaver Creek Reservoir
Criteria C.8 no plat/survey/County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.9 3,000 feet on Beaver Creek landowner 3.00
Criteria C.1O nla County Engineering Department 0.00
Criteria C.ll no County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria D.l nla Based on income grid 0.00
Point Total 50.08 points
PEC = Piedmont Environmental Council; VOF = Virginia Outdoors Foundation; TNC = The Nature Conservancy
DCR = Department of Conservation and Recreation
SH = Scenic Highway; EC = entrance corridor; SR = State Road
CE = Conservation Easement
SFRR = South Fork Rivanna River watershed; SWMHD = Southwest Mountains Historic District
Rankine: Evaluation Criteria & Points Determination
Owner:
Property:
Strawberry Hill Farm
TM 50, Parcel 45 (329.920 acres)
15 DivR's + 5 DevR's = 20 DR's
Ranking Criteria
Criteria A.1
Determination
2,127 feet on Augustus
835 feet on Greiner
Criteria B.3
14 usable DR's eliminated
Source for Points Points
plats/County overlay maps 7.92
RE Assessor's Office 6.60
landowner 5.00
landowner 0.00
Zoning & Planning Departments 7.00
County overlay maps 0.00
landowner 5.00
County tax map/plats 8.27
PEC/Monticello viewshed maps 3.00
Criteria A.2
329.920 acres
Criteria B.1
yes
Criteria B.2
no (because B.1 is yes)
Criteria C.1
no
Criteria C.2
yes
Criteria C.3
3,761 feet on Route 231
(a VB and EC)
Criteria CA
yes (SWMHD)
& DHR 02-1950
Criteria C.s
no
DCR Division of Natural Heritage
0.00
Criteria C.6
206 acres
County Soil Survey
4.12
Criteria C. 7
no
County overlay maps
0.00
Criteria C. 8
no
plat/survey/County overlay maps
0.00
Criteria C.9
no woodland creeks
landowner
0.00
Criteria C.w
n/a
County Engineering Department
0.00
Criteria C.ll
no
County overlay maps
0.00
Criteria D.1
Point Total
n/a
Based on income grid
0.00
46.91 points
PEC = Piedmont Environmental Council; VOF = Virginia Outdoors Foundation; TNC = The Nature Conservancy
DCR = Department of Conservation and Recreation
SH = County Scenic Highway; VB = Virginia Byway; EC = entrance corridor; SR = State Road
CE = Conservation Easement
SFRR = South Fork Rivanna River watershed
SWMHD = Southwest Mountains Historic District
Rankin!! Evaluation Criteria & Points Determination
Owner:
Property:
James C. McDaniel
TM 135, Parcel15A (0.902 acres)
TM 135, Parcel 18 ( 24.371 acres)
TM 135, Parcel 19 "A" ( 87.481 acres)
TM 135, Parcel 19 "B" ( 24.785 acres)
TM 13 5, Parcel 22 ( 39.720 acres)
TM 135, Parce122E (15.715 acres)
Total (192.978 acres)
o DivR's +
o DivR's +
3 DivR's +
1 DivR's +
1 DivR's +
o DivR's +
5 DivR's +
1 DevR's = 1 DR's
o DevR's = 0 DR's (in floodplain)
5 DevR's = 8 DR's
5 DevR's = 6 DR's
5 DevR's = 6 DR's
5 DevR's = 4 DR's
21 DevR's = 25 DR's
Ranking Criteria
Criteria A.1
Determination
next to TNC easement
Criteria A.2
192.974 acres
Source for Points Points
plats/County overlay maps 2.00
RE Assessor's Office 3.86
landowner 0.00
landowner 0.00
Zoning & Planning Departments 10.50
County overlay maps 0.00
landowner 3.00
County tax map/plats 6040
PEC/Monticello viewshed maps 3.00
DCR Division of Natural Heritage 2.00
Criteria B.1
no
Criteria B.2
no
Criteria B.3
21 usable DR's eliminated
Criteria C.l
no
Criteria C.2
yes
Criteria C.3
1,550 feet on SR 627
2,852 feet on SR 726
Criteria Co4
1806 home (DHR 2-241)
Criteria C.5
Virginia mallow
Stalkless yellow-cress
Criteria C.6
134 acres County Soil Survey
2.68
Criteria C.7
2,154 feet on the James River County overlay maps
1.08
Criteria C.8
no plat/survey/County overlay maps
0.00
Criteria C.9
100' wide buffer on James River landowner
2.15
Criteria C.l 0
nla County Engineering Department
0.00
Criteria C.11
yes County overlay maps
2.00
Criteria 0.1
Point Total
34% funding Based on income grid
6.60
45.27 points
PEC = Piedmont Environmental Council; VOF = Virginia Outdoors Foundation; TNC = The Nature Conservancy
DCR = Department of Conservation and Recreation; SH = Scenic Highway; EC = entrance corridor;
SR = State Road; CE = Conservation Easement; SFRR = South Fork Rivanna River watershed
SWMHD = Southwest Mountains Historic District
Rankine: Evaluation Criteria & Points Determination
Owner:
Property:
Margaret Anderson
TM 101, Parce160 (186.760 acres)
8 DivR's + 5 DevR's = 13 DR's
Ranking Criteria Determination Source for Points Points
Criteria A.l 5,369 feet on Davey plats/County overlay maps 12.74
Criteria A.2 186.760 acres RE Assessor's Office 3.73
Criteria B.l no landowner 0.00
Criteria B.2 no landowner 0.00
Criteria B.3 11 usable DR's eliminated Zoning & Planning Departments 5.50
Criteria C.l no County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.2 no landowner 0.00
Criteria C.3 2,801 feet on SR 717 County tax map/plats 5.13
2,325 feet on SR 708
Criteria CA no PEC/Monticello viewshed maps 0.00
Criteria C.5 Smooth sweet-shrub DCR Division of Natural Heritage 2.00
Criteria C.6 147 acres County Soil Survey 2.93
Criteria C. 7 2,462 feet on Hardware River County overlay maps 1.23
Criteria C.8 no plat/survey/County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.9 2,462 feet on Hardware River landowner 9.29
5,824 feet on S. Fork Hardware River
Criteria C.l0 nla County Engineering Department 0.00
Criteria C.ll no County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria D.l nla Based on income grid 0.00
Point Total 42.55
PEC = Piedmont Environmental Council; VOF = Virginia Outdoors Foundation; TNC = The Nature Conservancy
DCR = Department of Conservation and Recreation
SH = Scenic Highway; EC = entrance corridor; SR = State Road
CE = Conservation Easement
SFRR = South Fork Rivanna River watershed
SWMHD = Southwest Mountains Historic District
Rankin!! Evaluation Criteria & Points Determination
Owner:
Property:
Ruby Sacre
TM 36, Parcel 6
( 66.360 acres)
2 DivR's + 5 DevR's = 7 DR's
Ranking Criteria Determination Source for Points Points
Criteria A.1 1,369 feet on Slater plats/County overlay maps 6.67
968 feet on Swanson
Criteria A.2 66.360 acres RE Assessor's Office 1.33
Criteria B.1 no landowner 0.00
Criteria B.2 yes landowner 3.00
Criteria B.3 6 usable DR's eliminated Zoning & Planning Departments 3.00
Criteria C.1 no County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.2 yes landowner 3.00
Criteria C.3 2,687 feet on SR 777 County tax map/plats 4.69
Criteria C.4 yes (SWMHD) PEC/Monticello viewshed maps 3.00
& DHR 2-1843
Criteria C.s Dwarf wedgemussel DCR Division of Natural Heritage 0.00
(no points because of C.9)
Criteria C.6 41 acres County Soil Survey 0.82
Criteria C. 7 none County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.8 no plat/survey/County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.9 landowner not interested landowner 0.00
Criteria C.w n/a County Engineering Department 0.00
Criteria C.11 no County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria D.1 n/a Based on income grid 0.00
Point Total 25.51 points
PEC = Piedmont Environmental Council; VOF = Virginia Outdoors Foundation; TNC = The Nature Conservancy
DCR = Department of Conservation and Recreation
SH = Scenic Highway; EC = entrance corridor; SR = State Road
CE = Conservation Easement
SFRR = South Fork Rivanna River watershed
SWMHD = Southwest Mountains Historic District
Rankin!! Evaluation Criteria & Points Determination
Owner:
Property:
John Barksdale
TM 100, Parcel 34
(153.010 acres)
7 DivR's + 3 DevR's = 10 DR's
Ranking Criteria
Criteria A.l
Determination
1,076 feet on Walnut Creek
Park
Source for Points
plats/County overlay maps
Points
4.15
Criteria A,2
153.010 acres
RE Assessor's Office
3.06
Criteria B.I
no
landowner
0.00
Criteria B.2
no
landowner
0.00
Criteria B.3
7 usable DR's eliminated
Zoning & Planning Departments
3.50
Criteria C.I
no
County overlay maps
0.00
Criteria C.2
yes
landowner
3.00
Criteria C.3
1,076 feet on SR 631
County tax map/plats
3.08
Criteria CA
none
PEC/Monticello viewshed maps
0.00
Criteria C.5
mafic outcrops w/ rare plants?
DCR Division of Natural Heritage
3.00
Criteria C.6
105 acres
County Soil Survey
2.10
Criteria C. 7
no
County overlay maps
0.00
Criteria C.8
no
plat/survey/County overlay maps
0.00
Criteria C.9
none
landowner
0.00
Criteria C.1O
nla
County Engineering Department
0.00
Criteria C.ll
no
County overlay maps
0.00
Criteria D.I
Point Total
88% funding
Based on income grid
1.20
23.09 points
PEC = Piedmont Environmental Council; VOF = Virginia Outdoors Foundation; TNC = The Nature Conservancy
DCR = Department of Conservation and Recreation
SH = Scenic Highway; EC = entrance corridor; SR = State Road
CE = Conservation Easement
SFRR = South Fork Rivanna River watershed
SWMHD = Southwest Mountains Historic District
Rankin!! Evaluation Criteria & Points Determination
Owner: Rives
Property: TM 65, Parcel 93Al ( 3.811 acres) o DivR's + 1 DevR's = 1 DR's
TM 65, Parcel 94 ( 3.000 acres) o DivR's + 1 DevR's = 1 DR's
TM 65, Parcel 94 "A" ( 1.250 acres) o DivR's + 1 DevR's = 1 DR's
TM 65, Parcel 94 "B" (15.950 acres) o DivR's + 5 DevR's = 5 DR's
TM 65, Parcel 95 ( 4.872 acres) o DivR's + 2 DevR's = 2 DR's
TM 65, Parcel 95A ( 3.978 acres) o DivR's + 1 DevR's = 1 DR's
TM 65, Parcel 121 (38.840 acres) 1 DivR's + 6 DevR's = 7 DR's
Total (71.701 acres) 1 DivR's + 17 DevR's = 18 DR's
Ranking Criteria
Criteria A.I
Determination
< 1;4 mile from existing easements
Source for Points
plats/County overlay maps
Points
2.00
Criteria A.2
71.701 acres
RE Assessor's Office
1.43
Criteria B.I
no
landowner
0.00
Criteria B.2
no
landowner
0.00
Criteria B.3
16 DR's eliminated
Zoning & Planning Departments
8.00
Criteria C.I
no
County overlay maps
0.00
Criteria C.2
yes
landowner
3.00
Criteria C.3
470 feet on Route 231
144 feet on SR 740
County tax map/plats
2.92
Criteria CA
yes - SWMHD
PEC/Monticello viewshed maps
3.00
Criteria C.5
no
DCR Division of Natural Heritage
0.00
Criteria C.6
33 acres
County Soil Survey
0.66
Criteria C. 7
no
County overlay maps
0.00
Criteria C.8
no
plat/survey/County overlay maps
0.00
Criteria C.9
none
landowner
0.00
Criteria C.1O
nla
County Engineering Department
0.00
Criteria C.II
yes
County overlay maps
2.00
Criteria D.I
Point Total
nla
Based on income grid
0.00
23.01 points
PEC = Piedmont Environmental Council; VOF = Virginia Outdoors Foundation; TNC = The Nature Conservancy
DCR = Department of Conservation and Recreation; SH = Scenic Highway; EC = entrance corridor; SR = State
Road; CE = Conservation Easement; SFRR = South Fork Rivanna River watershed; SWMHD = Southwest
Mountains Historic District
Rankin!! Evaluation Criteria & Points Determination
Owner:
Property:
Rushia
TM 39, Parcel 27
(86. 700 acres)
3 DivR's + 5 DevR's = 8 DR's
Ranking Criteria
Criteria A.l
Determination
990 feet on Henley
2,690 feet on Shaw
1,735 feet on Pietsch
Source for Points
plats/County overlay maps
Points
12.83
Criteria A.2
86.700 acres
RE Assessor's Office
1.73
Criteria B.l
no
landowner
0.00
Criteria B.2
no
landowner
0.00
Criteria B.3
6 usable DR's eliminated
Zoning & Planning Departments
3.00
Criteria C.l
35 acres
County overlay maps
1.75
Criteria C.2
no
landowner
0.00
Criteria C.3
none
County tax map/plats
0.00
Criteria CA
none
PEC/Monticello viewshed maps
0.00
Criteria C.5
no
DCR Division of Natural Heritage
0.00
Criteria C.6
8 acres
County Soil Survey
0.19
Criteria C. 7
SF Rivanna River Watershed
County overlay maps
3.00
Criteria C.8
no
plat/survey/County overlay maps
0.00
Criteria C.9
none
landowner
0.00
Criteria C.1O
nla
County Engineering Department
0.00
Criteria C.ll
no
County overlay maps
0.00
Criteria D.l
Point Total
nla
Based on income grid
0.00
22.50 points
PEC = Piedmont Environmental Council; VOF = Virginia Outdoors Foundation; TNC = The Nature Conservancy
DCR = Department of Conservation and Recreation
SH = Scenic Highway; EC = entrance corridor; SR = State Road
CE = Conservation Easement
SFRR = South Fork Rivanna River watershed
SWMHD = Southwest Mountains Historic District
Rankin2 Evaluation Criteria & Points Determination
Owner:
Property:
J ensenIBarnett
TM 40, Parcel 8
( 91.070 acres)
3 DivR's + 5 DevR's = 8 DR's
Ranking Criteria Determination Source for Points Points
Criteria A.l < 14 mile from existing easements plats/County overlay maps 2.00
Criteria A.2 91.070 acres RE Assessor's Office 1.82
Criteria B.I no landowner 0.00
Criteria B.2 no landowner 0.00
Criteria B.3 6 usable DR's eliminated Zoning & Planning Departments 3.00
Criteria C.l no County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.2 yes landowner 3.00
Criteria C.3 none County tax map/plats 0.00
Criteria C.4 no PEC/Monticello viewshed maps 0.00
Criteria C.5 no DCR Division of Natural Heritage 0.00
Criteria C.6 34 acres County Soil Survey 0.68
Criteria C. 7 SF Rivanna River Watershed County overlay maps 3.00
Criteria C.8 no plat/survey/County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.9 1,200 feet on woodland creeks landowner 1.80
Criteria C.l 0 nla County Engineering Department 0.00
Criteria C.ll no County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria D.l 94 % funding Based on income grid 0.60
Point Total 15.90 points
PEC = Piedmont Environmental Council; VOF = Virginia Outdoors Foundation; TNC = The Nature Conservancy
DCR = Department of Conservation and Recreation
SH = Scenic Highway; EC = entrance corridor; SR = State Road
CE = Conservation Easement
SFRR = South Fork Rivanna River watershed
SWMHD = Southwest Mountains Historic District
Source for Points Determination of ACE Applicants
Criteria Aol (parcel joins an existing easement etc.) - PEC, VOF, TNC, VDHR, County of Albemarle
PRFA
Criteria Ao2 (size of parcel) - Real Estate Assessor's Office
Criteria B.! (parcel threatened with forced sale) - written proof from landowner, his attorney etc.
Criteria B.2 (parcel threatened by economic hardship) - written proof from landowner, his attorney etc.
Criteria B.3 (number of usable development rights eliminated) - official determination by Zoning and
Planning Departments. This calculation assumes one DR per existing residential dwelling.
Criteria Co! (mountaintop protection) - mountain overlay maps
Criteria e2 (working family farm) - written proof from landowner, site visit, tax returns etc.
Criteria e3 (parcel joins a Virginia scenic highway or byway, entrance corridor or public road) _
determine from plats/surveys (if available), if not, then County tax maps (1 inch = 600 feet)
Criteria CA (parcel contains historic resources or lies in primary Monticello viewshed) - see PEC maps,
obtain proof from landowner if registered structure and review Monticello viewshed maps
Criteria C.5 (parcel contains a Natural Heritage listing) - contact Natural Heritage Division (DCR)
Criteria Co6 (parcel contains Tvpe III soils or better) - for properties under land-use, see CIS program
from County Real Estate Office. Otherwise, use dot grid with County soil survey
Criteria C.7 (parcel lies within drinking supply watersheds) -look at "Open Space Concept Map"
Criteria Cog (parcel lies on a state scenic river) - determine from plats/surveys (if available), if not,
County tax maps
Criteria e9 (parcel subject to permanent easement that establishes a riparian buffer) - written proof from
landowner or holder of easement
Criteria Co! 0 (parcel lies within senSItIve groundwater recharge area) - contact Dave Hirschman in
County Engineering Department. Not currently being applied!!!
Criteria ell (parcel lies within an existing Ag-Forestal district) - county tax maps or data files
Criteria D.I (parcel can be leveraged with funding from state, federal or private sources) - contact
landowner, obtain written proof
PEC = Piedmont Environmental Council; VOF = Virginia Outdoors Foundation; TNC = The Nature
Conservancy; DCR = Department of Conservation and Recreation
CIS = Comprehensive Information Systems
SH = Scenic Highway; SR = State Road; EC = Entrance Corridor
Attachment "B"
General Description of Round 7 (Year 2006-07) ACE Properties
1. Clayton Property (228.500 acres) - the Clayton property lies 2 miles east of Crozet in the
rolling foothills of the Blue Ridge Mountains. The land is composed of woodland and fertile
pastureland surrounding the Beaver Creek Reservoir, the primary water supply reservoir for
Crozet. The main source of points from the ranking criteria include: 1) the property has
>6,700 feet of boundary along the Beaver Creek Reservoir; 2) it has 124 acres of "prime"
farm and forestland; 3) it has >1,500 feet along Route 240; 4) it is a working family farm; 5)
the property contains historic farm structures from the 18th and 19th century; 6) an easement
would eliminate 10 usable development rights; and 7) it lies within the watershed of the
South Fork of the Rivanna River Reservoir and the Beaver Creek Reservoir. Score: 47.08
points.
2. Strawberry Hill Farm (329.920 acres) - Strawberry Hill Farm lies approximately 4 miles
northeast of Cismont in the historic Southwest Mountains of Albemarle County, an area with
a large concentration of properties under easement. With over 3,700 feet of frontage on
Route 231, a Virginia Byway and major entrance corridor, the property also has significant
tourism value. The primary source of points from the ranking criteria include: 1) it has
almost 3,000 feet of common boundary with 2 other properties under easement; 2) it has
3,761 feet of road frontage on Route 231 - a Virginia Byway and major entrance corridor; 3)
it lies in the Southwest Mountains Rural Historic District; 4) it has 206 acres of "prime" farm
and forestland (Davidson red clay loams); and 5) an easement would eliminate 14 usable
development rights. Score: 46.91 points
3. McDaniel Property 092.978 acres) - the McDaniel property, Donegal Farm, lies 4 miles
southwest of Scottsville near the old Warren Ferry. A working farm with 19th century farm
structures, the property consists of farm and forestland and approximately 50 acres of James
River bottomland. The primary source of points from the ranking criteria include: 1) it has
over 4,300 feet of frontage on SR 627 and 726; 2) it contains 134 acres of "prime" forestland;
3) it lies near a Nature Conservancy easement; 4) an easement would eliminate 21 usable
development rights; 5) the property has 2,150 feet along the James River; and 6) the Owner
wishes to establish a permanent, 100 foot wide riparian forest buffer along the James River.
Score: 45.27 points
4. Anderson Property 086.760 acres) - the Anderson property is located approximately 9 miles
south of Charlottesville near Walton Middle School. It lies in the Green Mountains and is in
the proposed Southern Albemarle Rural Historic District, an historic area known for its
beautiful estates and highly productive farmland. In addition, it has long frontage on
Hardware River and the South Fork of the Hardware Rivers. The primary source of points
from the ranking criteria include: 1) the property has over 7,000 feet of frontage on the
Hardware and South Fork of the Hardware Rivers; 2) it has 5,100 feet of road frontage on
State Roads 717 and 708; 3) it has 147 acres of "prime" farm and forestland (Davidson clay
loams); 4) an easement would eliminate 11 usable development rights; 5) Smooth Sweet-
shrub, a threatened species, has been documented just downstream of the property; and 6) the
Owner wishes to maintain permanent riparian forest buffers along the Hardware River and
South Fork of the Hardware River. Score: 42.55 points.
5. Sacre Property (66.360 acres) - the Sacre property lies approximately 5 miles north of
Cismont in the heart of the historic Southwest Mountains, an area with numerous properties
under easement. The headwaters of Blue Run pass through the property. The primary source
of points from the ranking criteria include: 1) it has over 2,000 feet of common boundary
with 2 other properties under easement; 2) it has 2,687 feet of road frontage on SR 777; 3) it
lies in the Southwest Mountains Rural Historic District; 4) it has 41 acres of "prime" farm
and forestland (Davidson red clay loams); 4) the landowner is a single, retired woman who
has lived on this land her entire life; and 6) an easement would eliminate 6 usable
development rights. Score: 25.51 points
6. Barksdale Property (153.010 acres) - the Barksdale property is located 9 miles southwest of
Charlottesville on the west side of Old Lynchburg Road where it is adjacent to Walnut Creek
Park. The land consists of both open pasture and mature hardwoods on rolling Piedmont
terrain. The primary source of points from the ranking criteria include: 1) the property has
1,076 feet of common boundary with Walnut Creek Park; 2) it has 105 acres of "prime" farm
and forestland; 3) an easement would eliminate 7 usable development rights; 4) it has over
1,000 feet of frontage on SR 631 (Old Lynchburg Road). Score: 23.09 points
7. Rives Property (71.701 acres) - a re-enrollment from last year, the Barclay property lies
approximately 1 mile northeast of Cismont in the historic Southwest Mountains of Albemarle
County. Since it is composed of 7 different tax parcels, an easement would eliminate a large
number of development rights. With nearly 500 feet of frontage on Route 231, a Virginia
Byway and major entrance corridor, the property also has significant tourism value. The
primary source of points from the ranking criteria include: 1) an easement would eliminate 16
usable development rights; 2) it has nearly 500 feet of road frontage on Route 231 - a
Virginia Byway and major entrance corridor; 3) it lies in the Southwest Mountains Historic
District; 4) it has 33 acres of "prime" farm and forestland (Davidson red clay loams); and 5) it
lies within 14 mile of other properties under easement. Score: 23.01 points
8. Rushia Property (86.700 acres) - a re-enrollment from last year, the Rushia property lies 1
mile north ofCrozet on the top of Beaver Creek Mountain, a landmark visible from anywhere
in the Crozet area. Since other conservation easements are contiguous to much of the
property, an ACE easement would create a substantial block of protected land. This would
ensure the protection of an important viewshed. The primary source of points from the
ranking criteria include: 1) an easement would eliminate usable 6 development rights; 2) the
property lies within the watershed of the South Fork of the Rivanna River reservoir; 3) the
property has 35 acres within the "ridge area boundary" of Beaver Creek Mountain; and 4) it
has 5,415 feet of common boundary with 3 other properties under easement. Score: 22.50
points
9. Jensen/Bamett Property (91.071 acres) - a re-enrollment from last year, the Jensen/Bamett
property is located 2 miles north of Crozet on the White Hall Road. It lies at the foot of
Buck's Elbow Mountain in an area of fertile farm and orchardland. Several tracts of land
within 14 mile of the property are currently under easement. The primary source of points
from the ranking criteria include: 1) an easement would eliminate 6 usable development
rights; 2) the owners derive income from agricultural uses of the property; 3) the property lies
within the watershed of the South Fork of the Rivanna River reservoir; 4) it has 34 acres of
"prime" farm and forestland; and 5) the Owner wishes to maintain permanent riparian forest
buffers along existing woodland streams. Score: 15.90 points
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Child Care Subsidy Advocacy
AGENDA DATE:
May 9, 2007
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
.sUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Social Service Advisory Board advocacy for child
care subsidies
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X
INFORMATION:
STAFF CONTACTCS):
Messrs. Tucker, Elliott and Davis; Ms. Ralston
ATTACHMENTS: No
REVIEWED BY:
~--"
I
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
BACKGROUND:
In FY 2007, the Virginia Department of Social Services reduced funding to localities for child care subsidies for low income
working families. Specifically, an 85 percent reduction was experienced in the level of federal funding for this region's long-
term collaborative child care program operated jointly by the Thomas Jefferson-United Way, the City of Charlottesville and
Albemarle County. In FY 2008, it is expected that federal support for this child care subsidy program will be eliminated all-
together. This action is being taken to redirect funding to the expanded population in the VIEW (Virginia Initiative for
Employment Not Welfare) program mandated in the federal Deficit Reduction Act of 2006. While other funding is available
to support child care subsidies for low income working families, the lack of federal funding for this vital program has
resulted in the need for the Department to establish a waiting list for this service for the first time in seven years.
During a retreat in December, the Advisory Board identified several issues that are important to it and recently decided to
focus on "increasing the number of children and families helped with child care subsidies" as a priority focus for this year.
This includes working to raise awareness of the need, creating scholarships, educating businesses about the benefits of
on-site child care and promoting high quality child care services.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 1 : Enhance the Quality of Life for All Albemarle County Residents
Objective 1.3 Increase the ability of those individuals and families, who are living in lower income households, to become
self-sufficient.
DISCUSSION:
The Advisory Board is established under Sections 63.2-302 and 63.2-305 of the Virginia Code and has as its duties:
· To interest itself in all matters pertaining to the social welfare of the people of the County;
· To monitor the formulation and implementation of social welfare programs in the County;
· To meet with the Director of the Department at least four times a year to make recommendations on policy
matters; and
· To make an annual report to the governing body concurrent with the Department's budget presentation,
concerning the administration of the public welfare program.
To accomplish these duties, the Advisory Board developed more specific roles aligned with the Code:
· To be an advocate for community issues pertaining to the social welfare of people in the County;
· To be a liaison with the Board of Supervisors and the community on issues related to the social welfare of people
in the County;
· To be knowledge seekers to learn about department services and needs of the community; and
· To identify issues that the department should focus on when there is opportunity
I
L
AGENDA TITLE: Child Care Subsidy Advocacy
May 9, 2007
Page 2
The Advisory Board proposes implementing a plan to accomplish their goal of increasing the number of children and
families assisted with child care subsidies that includes 1) creating a fact sheet about the need for child care assistance, 2)
establishing partnerships with the United Way, the Chamber of Commerce and the Thomas Jefferson Partnership for
Economic Development for a coordinated approach to advocacy, and 3) meeting with area business leaders, local
legislators and the Governor to advocate for increased state funds to help low income working families with child care
expenses. In concert with this specific plan, the Department has recently learned that a statewide organization is building a
coalition to support an increase in child care subsidies to localities. The Advisory Board may desire to join this coalition and
work to support their efforts with the Board's approval.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Child Care subsidy programs have traditionally required a local match ranging from 0 - 10 percent for federal/state funds
allocated for this purpose. Should the General Assembly allocate additional funds for this program, it will likely require local
matching funds of at least 10 percent. Since this is not a mandated program, local governments are not required to provide
matching funds; instead they may opt to return unmatched state funds.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board authorize the Advisory Board to advocate for legislation or budget language that supports
increased state funding for child care subsidies for low income working families.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Requested FY 2007 Appropriations
AGENDA DATE:
May 9,2007
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
SUBJECT/PROPOSAUREQUEST:
Request approval of Appropriation #2007077
totaling $113,000.00 for additional funding for the
sallyport project
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Breeden, Wiggans
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
~
f
LEGAL REVIEW: No
BACKGROUND:
The Code of Virginia 9 15.2-2507 stipulates that any locality may amend its budget to adjust the aggregate amount to be
appropriated during the fiscal year as shown in the currently adopted budget. However, any such amendment which
exceeds one percent of the total expenditures shown in the currently adopted budget or the sum of $500,000, whichever is
lesser, must be accomplished by first publishing a notice of a meeting and holding a public hearing before amending the
budget. The Code section applies to all County funds, i.e., General Fund, Capital Funds, E911, School Self-Sustaining, etc.
The total of this requested FY 2007 appropriation is $113,000.00. It is anticipated that a budget amendment public hearing
will be proposed at a subsequent Board meeting and this appropriation would be incorporated into it.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 5. Develop a comprehensive funding strategy/plan to address the County's growing needs.
DISCUSSION:
This request involves the approval of one (1) new FY 2007 appropriation as follows:
· One (1) appropriation totaling $113,000.00 in additional funds for the sallyport project.
A detailed description of this appropriation is provided on Attachment A.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the FY 2007 Appropriation #2007077.
ATTACHMENTS
A - Proposed Appropriation
Attachment A
Appropriation #2007077
$113.000.00
Revenue Source:
CIP Fund Balance
$113,000.00
At the April 4, 2007 Board meeting, the Board approved a proposed change in the vehicle sallyport construction
project. The proposed change adds a tunnel to the project and will require an additional $113,000.00. This will
be funded using CIP fund balance.
BUDGET RESOLUTION
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia:
1) That the budget for the County for the Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 2007 is made up of the
County Executive's Recommended Budget document and the amendments made by the Board of
Supervisors as detailed in Attachment B of this Executive Summary.
2) That the budget for the County for the Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 2007 is summarized as
follows:
Administration
Judicial
Public Safety
General SeNces
Human Dewlopment Oncluding PVCC)
Parks, Recreation, and Culture
Community Dewlopment
Refunds/Other
City/County Revenue Sharing
General GOIJemment Capital Projects
Stonnwater Improvements
General GOIJemment Debt SeNce
Education - Capital Projects
Education - Debt SeMce
Education - School Operations
Education - Self-Sustaining Funds
Rese1V8 - Health Insurance Reductions
Board Resel'YeS
TOTAL
FY 07/08 Adopted
$10,459,959
3,662,401
29,330,505
4,522,698
23,602,186
6,246,526
10,743,991
648,340
13,212,401
14,139,592
725,000
2,253,761
14,128,000
12,467,283
143,988,884
14,954,196
249,785
426,334
$305,761,842
3) That the budget for the County for the Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 2007 as described in 1) and
2) above be approved.
****************
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true and correct copy of a
Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County by a vote of six to zero, as
reconled below. at a meeting held on May 9. 2007. .):) \ Ov [; V ~
_AyYO !!!Ix ~rd of County SUP8IVisoLrs )
Mr. Boyd
Mr. Donier Y
Mr. Rooker y
Mr. Slutzky y
Ms. Thomas y
Mr. Wyant y
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES
General Government Operations 79,419,180
Health Insurance Reduction -249,785
Subtotal, General Government Operations 79,169,395
General Government Initiatives 2,190,529
Initiatives -1,118,526
Expanded Bus Service 250,000
Subtotal, General Government 1,322,003
Refunds 146,590
Subtotal, Refunds 146,590
City Revenue Sharing 13,212,401
Subtotal, Revenue Sharing 13,212,401
Capital Improvement & Debt Service Transfers 26,374,945
Adjustment based on revised revenue estimates -580,938
Subtotal, Capital & Debt Transfers 25,794,007
Transfer for School Operations 100,023,166
Adjustment based on revised revenue estimates -1,589,765
Subtotal, Transfer for School Operations 98,433,401
Contingency Reserves 4,511,283
Reassessment Reserve Adjustment -3,500,000
Health Insurance Reserve 249,785
Board Reserve Adjustment -201,649
Subtotal, Contingency Reserve 1,059,419
GENERAL FUND - REVENUES & FUNDING SOURCES
COUNTY EXECUTIVE'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET
djustments
..,_~s
School Fund Operations
Decrease Transfer from General Fund
Other Revenue Adjustments
Subtotal, School Fund Operations
8ue1,..
149,457,289
......
-1,589,765
82,828
147,950,352
Self-Sustaining Fund Operations
Subtotal, School Self-Sustaining
15,354,196
15,354,196
WIII'aeMOOL.DNIIION IUDGIT
,.
_t.,
General Government Projects
Reduce Contingency Reserve
Subtotal, General Government Projects
<~.'.u .....'
-1,096,938
14,139,592
Storm Water Projects
Subtotal, Storm Water Projects
725,000
725,000
School Division Projects
Defer Funding for Building Services OfficelWarehouse
Subtotal, School Division Projects
16,598,000
-2,470,000
14,128,000
Debt Service
Subtotal, Debt Service
14,721,044
14,721,044
Comprehensive Services Act
Subtotal, Comprehensive Services Act
6,843,342
6,843,342
E-911 Service Charge Fund
Eliminate Fund
Subtotal, E-911 Service Charge Fund
1 ,672,295
-1,672,295
o
Other Special Revenue Funds
Subtotal, Other Special Revenue Funds
7,552,964
7,552,964
SUMMARY OF ALL FUNDS
o
Budget
General Fund
School Fund/School Self-Sustaining
Capital and Debt Service Funds
Special Revenue Funds
225,878,094
164,811,485
47,280,574
16,068,601
219,137,216
164,811,485
47,280,574
14,396,306
SUBTOTAL-ALL FUNDS 454,038,754 440,551,706
LESS INTERFUND TRANSFERS (138,632,862) (134.789,864 )
TOTAL COUNTYBUDGET-ALL FUNDS 315,405,892 305,761,842
FY 07/08 Budget Adjustments Worksheet
Recurrino Reserves
Beginning Board Reserves 1,600,338
~
Latest Adjustments
Health Insurance Reduction 249,785
Additional Police 599 Revenue 109,584
Subtotal -- Latest Adjustments 359,369
Net Reserves 1.969.707
Reauested Initiatives NET COST
yes Reserve from Health Insurance Reductions 249,785 249,785
yes CTS (Board Initiative) 250,000 250,000
2 Police Officers* 481,504 240,752
I East Rivanna Personnel 654,264 545,220
yes Child Welfare Division Supervisor* 61,846 61,846
yes Child Welfare Division Office Associate* 32,399 32,399
no Police Office Associate 17,722 -
no Eligibility Program Supervisor* 34,865 -
no Eligibility Program Office Associate* 21,850 -
yes Assistant County Attorney 66,191 66,191
no Internet Bandwidth 33,000 -
no Course Reimbursement 65,000 -
no Skill Certification Pay 75,000 -
no Engineering Inspector - CIP 77 ,894 -
no Recreation Program Expansion* 55,613 -
no Project Manager - CIP 73,336 -
yes Rural Area Support Position 84,180 84,180
no Master Plan Implementation Planner 75,276 -
no Performance Analyst 119,259 -
Aaencv Proarams
yes Zona Latina 3,000 3,000
no African American Festival (Chihamba) 3,000 -
no Charlottesville Community Design Center 30,000 -
Subtotal -- Initiatives and Agencies 2,564,984 1,533,373
Final Reserves 426,334
Printed 7/18/20079:53 AM
1
2
3
r.::- ~; v ,
:.-,
!
r-'\orlf
4
5
6
7
8
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
CIP Discussion -- Pantops Fire Rescue Station
AGENDA DATE:
May 9, 2007
ACTION:
INFORMATION: X
SUBJECT/PROPOSALlREQU EST:
Staff's Recommendation on Justification for the
Pantops Fire Rescue Station
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
STAFF CONTACnS):
Tucker, Elliott, Foley, Eggleston
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
LEGAL REVIEW: No
BACKGROUND:
Over the years, several studies, including the final version of the City/County consolidation study and draft
recommendations of the Pantops Master Plan, have identified the need to build a fire rescue station in the Pantops
development area. The justification to build this station is based on three primary goals:
1. To support the County's Land Use policy by providing a basic level of fire rescue services in the development
areas.
2. Position county fire rescue stations so as not to rely on the City for primary fire services after 2010.
3. Achieve a higher quality of service currently not provided through the existing City/County Fire Services
Agreement.
Funds to build the Pantops station have been programmed in the CIP and 5-year operational model with anticipation of
ending the City/County fire service contract in 2010.
Recently, the Board raised questions regarding whether or not the Pantops fire rescue station is still needed based
upon the assumption that East Rivanna VFD or Monticello Fire Rescue can cover the Pantops area once the
City/County fire service contract ends in 2010.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 1: Enhance the Quality of Life for All Albemarle County Residents
DISCUSSION:
Staff has prepared the attached memo which outlines the need for the Pantops station based on the following key
points:
1. The City Fire's current 10 minute response time to the Pantops area is not meeting our desired response time
goal and trends show that the City response times are increasing.
2. Response time analysis of East Rivanna VFD and Monticello FR indicate neither station can reach the
Pantops area in less than 10 minutes.
3. Due to growth and development in the area (population growth, growth in at-risk population, vehicle movement
increases, development of residential/commercial/institutional facilities) calls for service are increasing.
...1II./BCIQUIII
ALBENlARLECDUNTY
To:
Bryan Elliott, Tom Foley
From:
Dan Eggleston, Fire Rescue Chief
Date:
May 1, 2007
Subject:
Pantops - Fire Rescue Station Analysis
The justification to build the Pantops station is based on three primary goals:
1. To support the County's Land Use policy by providing a basic level of fire rescue services in the development areas 1.
2. Position county fire rescue stations so as not to rely on the City for primary fire services in 2010.
3. Achieve a higher quality of service currently not provided by the City.
During a previous budget work session, there appeared to be some questions regarding the need to continue planning for
a fire rescue station in the Pantops development area. The questions centered around the need to adhere to 5 minute
response time goal and whether timely services could be provided by Monticello FR or East Rivanna VFD.
Staff has researched the issue and has determined that:
1. Based on research of national standards and like-sized communities, the 5 minute response time goal should remain
a standard for development areas. The need to adhere to a 5 minute response time goal is supported based on the
fact that the Pantops area is considered high risk due to age of population and facility types.
2. Response time data shows that East Rivanna VFD, Monticello FR, or the City Fire cannot adequately cover the
Pantops development area as a primary service provider. Response times from the aforementioned stations to the
Pantops area range from 9-12 minutes.
3. A 2-bay fire rescue station should be placed in the development area to meet the response time goals and backup
services should be continued from East Rivanna VFD and Monticello FR.
Rational - 5 Minute Urban Response Time Goal
A 5 minute response time goal is a standard urban response time goal that was established by the National Fire
Protection Association (NFPA) and the American Heart Association (AHA) for fire and EMS related calls. The NFPA and
AHA standards are based on an analysis of fire growth and survival rates from cardiac arrest. Most localities of similar
size to Albemarle have adopted the 5 minute goal for urban areas.
National Fire Protection Association
American Heart Association
James City County
Spotsylvania County
York County
5 minutes @ 90%
5 minutes @ 90%
5 minutes @ 90%
5 minutes @ 90%
5 minutes @ 90%
Additional information regarding response time standards is listed in appendix A.
1 Albemarle County "The Nature of Public Service Delivery (As Amended July 10, 2002)".
" We will provide the highest quality services to protect and preserve the
lives, property, and environment of our community. "
Page 2
Pantops Risk Issues
The Pantops development area is considered a high risk area primarily due to the at risk population (over 27% of the
Pantops population is over 65) and at risk facilities (640 elderly care units and a future 1 + million sq. ft. hospital).
For citizens 65 and older, the fire fatality rates are more than twice the national average. For those over 75, they jump to
three times the national average, and for those over 85, they are four times the national average2. The majority of the
Pantops senior citizens are living in elderly care facilities that have been constructed to meet recent building codes and
include fire detection or suppression systems, but still pose a risk to the occupants. In a study of fires occurring in elderly
care facilities, most of the injuries and deaths were attributed to relatively small fires that produced toxic fumes before fire
detection or suppression devices were activated3.
Additional risk information is included in appendix B.
Pantops Current Call Ratio
The 2006 response data shows that there were 858 emergency calls for service in the Pantops area. The ratio of the call
types are listed below:
Fire Company Responses
(fires, accidents, critical EMS, etc.)
486
Ambulance Only Responses
(moderate to low priority EMS calls)
372
Current Fire Rescue Service Provided to Pantops - City Fire and East Rivanna VFD
The Pantops area is currently served on a primary basis by the City of Charlottesville under a fire service contract. Backup
resources are provided by East Rivanna VFD. The following table shows that East Rivanna VFD or the City Fire reach the
Pantops area within 9-10 minutes, well above our response time goal.
2006 2007
YTD
Response Time @ Ability to Meet 5 Response Time @ Ability to Meet 5
90% Minute Goal 90% Minute Goal
East Rivanna VFD 12.5 min 4.35% 11.5 min 0%
East Rivanna VFD 10.5 min 4.76%
(forecast based on daytime career staff)
City Fire 9.0 min 25.99% 10.0 min 20.1%
I Response time goal
5.0 min
90.0%
The response time data above shows that the average speed for City fire units along Route 250 is 33 mph, The 33 mph
speed is due to the fact that the City must travel through 3 controlled intersections (Mcintire, Long St, and Stony Point Rd)
for calls to the center of Pantops. The average speed for East Rivanna units along Route 250 is 40.8 mph. The 40.8 mph
speed is due to the fact that East Rivanna must travel through 2 intersections with stop signs (Steamer Dr/Glenmore,
Glenmore/Rt. 250) and must travel through 4 controlled intersections (Milton Rd, Eastern 1-64 on/off ramp, Western 1-64
on/off ramp, and Peter Jefferson Parkway) for calls to the center of the Pantops.
Currently, the fire service contract with the City of Charlottesville cost the County approximately $600,000 annually. Based
on an analysis conducted by the City/County consolidation consultant, it cost the City approximately $1,983.959 to provide
fire services to the County. If the County decided to renegotiate the fire service contract with the City, it is likely that the
cost will approach if not exceed $2,000,000 annually.
2 Center for Disease Control, 1998. Located at http://www.cdc.gov/ncipclfactsheetslfire.htm
3 Vital and Health Statistics Series 13, No. 147, National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, 2000.
Page 3
If the Board decides to end the fire contract with the City, 350 emergency calls in the Pantops area will need to be picked
up by either East Rivanna VFD or Monticello FR.
Estimated Service Provided to Pantops - Monticello
During the previous budget work session, the Board questioned whether Monticello FR could adequately cover the
Pantops area. Because Monticello FR is not currently part of the initial or backup response to Pantops, little response data
is present. However, staff measured the distance from Monticello to the Pantops development area and determined that
Monticello is about 1.5 miles further from the edge of the development area as compared to East Rivanna VFD.
Therefore, Monticello FR would not meet the Pantops response time standards nor would they help to reduce response
times compared to East Rivanna VFD.
Forecasted Service Level
Based on a GIS time/distance analysis, it is estimated that a fire rescue station located on Pantops in the vicinity of State
Farm Boulevard, will serve most of the area within the 5 minute response time as defined in the Comprehensive Plan. In
addition, a Pantops station will also provide advanced life support services to the area (a much needed service to the
elderly population) and will provide needed backup fire and rescue services to East Rivanna VFD, Stony Point VFD, and
Monticello FR that will not be available when the city fire services contract ends in 2010.
Lonq Term Recommendation for Pantops
Based on the Pantops' risk profile and the current level of service provided by the City Fire Department, East Rivanna
VFD, or Monticello FR, staff is recommending that County continue with the planning of the Pantops fire rescue station.
The final version of the City/County consolidation study concurs with staff's recommendation.
Because the Pantops area is within a 10-12 minute response from East Rivanna VFD and Monticello FR, staff believes
that the scale of the Pantops station could be reduced as compared to the Hollymead station. Staff is recommending that
the Pantops station be configured to house an engine and a future ambulance and that ladder service to the Pantops and
Southern development areas be provided from the Monticello FR station.
East Rivanna's Chief John Hood and staff believes there is an opportunity to partner with East Rivanna to provide some
level of volunteer staffing during nights and weekends for a Pantops station. Further planing is needed with the East
Rivanna volunteers to better identify the opportunities.
Short Term Pantops Fire Rescue Station Options
Given staffs recommendation to move forward with the construction of the Pantops stations and the fact that the County
lacks the capacity to build a station by 2010, staff believes the Board should consider an alternative strategy. Listed
below are three options for the Board to consider:
o:t
~
~
~
"""
c
o
:,;:
Q,
o
r::::
o
;:;
"lt~
C r::::
o Q,)
:,;:e
Q,e
00
o
Q,)
Q::
M
C
o
:,;:
Q,
o
N
C
o
:,;:
Q,
o
e
o
~
00
....
S
~
Cll
~ 00
.9 ~
16 I
a..
.!:
e
o
~
-
rn
I~
~
E
2
"C
16 ~
:>; . 2:
lI):!:rnOl
Cl) Cll 0.. rn
CI ::J .9 Cll
!!! 0.: 16 ~
c'Q)a..Cll
~~oc
"C- Ol
<"C~E
~~g.
e='Q)
o..Ol>
E~~
Ol
U
'2:
Ol
rn
~
Cll
E
.;::
0..
....
S
t5
Cll
....
'E
o
U
~
<+=
~
o
~
::J 'E
.... Ol
g'rn E
.- 0.. 0..
00 0 "C ..Q
.I::. 'x 'E e Ol
.~ OlCll Cll5;
:0 E a.. II) :>; "C
Cll o~ Cl):!:: rn
(;j ~.s C) co 0.
W ~ rn Cll ::J.9
.l9 .9- 'E 0.: 16
rnOlIIl'Q)a..
.....I::. > >
~.9~.220~
ro rn "C ~ '2:
u5 ~OlOl
Ol.- oem
roE a15~
g rn E.~....
- -.....ro
'ffi
Ol
a:::
"C
e
W
Ol
U
'2: Ol
Ol "5
rn "C
~ ~
Cll U
E rn
"t: C
0.. 0
rn
e
o
~
-
rn
-
e
Ol
e
Cll
E
m
0..
:!2
'::;
rn
....
S
t5
~
-
e
o
U
~
<+=
~
o
"C
e
Ol
X
w
rn
e
o
:;:::
.l9
rn
Ol
.!:
00
'x
Ol
:;
';:
rn
0..
o
'E
Cll
a..
....
Ol
>
o
o
.9
"C
Ol
II)ro
Cl)-
CI~
J!~c:
e rn 0
~8:;
~~oo
"C~
e Cll
Cll....
.... 0
-0..
rn E
o Ol
z_
~
~
o
0..
E
2
.9
"C
11)2
~~
III ....
c:~
III rn
> 0
"CU
<~
"C
e
~ e
t5 .Q
oro
Zoo
Ol
e
.;::
E-
rn
00 0
o
U 8
co ro 0-
5"C~
:;::;~tA-
Cll....>.
mOl-
0.. Q) 2
O"C Cll
"CrnE>:
~~.~ =as
~u.c..~
Ol C'I 0.. e
O....CllCll
>.
.c.
rn>'
t)~
o ::J
U e
-e
~ Cll
00
:;:;0
CllO
.... .
OlO
0..0
Oco
Ol~
....>.
::J-
- Ol
::J-
_Cll
rn E
Ol'-
U X
::J e
"Co..
Olo..
a:::Cll
Ol
U
'2:
Ol
rn
~
Cll
E
.;::
0..
....
o
-
rn
00
o
U
t5
Cll
....
'E
o
U
o
Z
"C
'co
€ ro
:;: Ol.3
e e ::J
.Q:g E
co 'x .9
:;:::Ol
0_ e
OlO.Q
Ole:!::
: .Q ~
Sro~
c.S;
.Q E e_
-.- Cll e
'Cij 'Q) - Ol
o .... U E
2'S ~ Ol
UJ .2:' C ~
a308g'
:; Cll
';: Ol.3
5 oS ~
:; -~ .9
;;0)
0_ e
OlO .Q
Ole:!::
: .Q ~
Oro~....
'+-c.....c
e .- "C Ol
.Q E e E
:!::=CllOl
~~t5~
2'S ~ ~
rn ~'E w
a308~
Ol
::J
U
rn
Ol
a:::
~
u::
>.
'E
::J
o
o
.9
~E
Ol Ol
fficn
rnrn
Ol
::J
U
rn
Ol
a:::
~
u::
>.
'E
::J
o
o
.9
~E
Ol Ol
eoo
Ol>.
rnrn
>.
~
'(3
~
~
:g2l~
Clrno
III 0 0..
-UE
i~2
>"C.I::.
~e:!::
II) ~ :;:
cOO"C
-Ol
Cll-
'E .~
Ol 0
o~
a..Cll
"C
Ol
ro
'(3
o
rn
II) rn
Cl) Cll
Cl2l
!!!~~
cu=
III .-
> "C U
"COl~
III "C :>,.
II) e <....
c~~
~8.
.~ E
- Ol
e_
2.I::.
o:!::
a.. :;:
'E
Ol
-E
00..
-0
Ol-
>Ol-
II) Ol > U
Cl) - Ol ~
Q-"O"""
III a3 rn e
... '- c. 0
C....oO
cu:J..........
> U e 0
"COlCll"C
::;a..e
'-eOlOl
C._:; 0
e -
o.!: Ol
n~.s
.s '2: Cll
OlOl~
a:::rnCll
1ii
Ol
E
a
e
Om
II) "C 0..
Cl) rn 0
~~'E
_._ Cll
cc:a..
~ 5l.!:
"C_rn
:al'E
c.::;~
e e
8.l9
Olrn
.5~
1i5~
'x ~
Wo-
a
e rn
0..
';: .9
rn e
e Cll
o a..
~ .5
OOrn
Ol'E
e Cll
+:i"'C
.~ e
x Cll
OlOO
E>.
o:!::
~ro
~5-
'2: 1ii
Ol Ol
C/)E
t5
~
'E
o
U
....
S
00
8
.!:
Ol"C
rn Ol
Cll-
~ ~
U'(3
c:;::::;
.- e
'ECll
Cll rn
~~
~ '2:
Ci551
e
.Q
ro
:;:::
o
Ol
Ol
e
t5
~ rn
-Ol
e U
0.-
U C:
.... Ol
Srn
e~
o Cll
:;::i"O
'Cij e
o 0
o..u
.... Ol
om
0....
a..S
cb
5 Cll en
e :; .!: ~
_ 0 ';: 8 ~
uO"C 0.....
1Il0..0.2 0....
OCll COo
E 0'l'(3 >. co '<'-
-~o:!:~OO
a; ~ ~ '(3 ~ 8
CI$Cll~2_
"CCllrn:>,.CllCll
::J E - <.... E e
In 'x ~ ~ 'x .Q
eU8.eli1
8:~E8:Ol
<(:;:::$<(g
I I
~~
:;::;~
cb8.
5 E
e Ol
.....- .....
UoCll
[8:;
Eo';:
- O'l
_~"C
Cl) >.2
CI_ Cll
-g 2'(3
In Cll 0
.~ ~
XCll:>,.
e.$:!::
8:~'B
<(u~
a
e
Ol
rn
e
== e 8.
:;: .;;; .!: rn
~'E Ol~
B~ gj~
.l916 t)~0
en ...... cu (J .....,
Ol rn o...!: is
oS~ E~:;
rn .- :: 'E ';:
'x ~ Cl) Ol Ol
Olrn Clae
E5 -ga..:;:::
.g 0.. In as ~
Ol~13.. roO
.52 .:: 0 '6 ~
C:Ol'E Olrn
Ol OlE Cll E 0..
C/) a.. E .9
.- e
OCll
za..
~
o
....
S
-:>,.
u-
[~
E e
_ e
_Cll
Cl)o
Clo
"Co
:::I .
1n8
q
C'I
~
Ol-
-u
flCll
rn ....
~'E
a.. 8
Page 5
Appendix A- Response Time Standards
The Pantops station analysis referred to a series of performance measures developed by the American Heart Association,
the National Fire Protection Association and others for benchmark response time targets. These targets are derived from
a series of initiatives that examine the ability of first responders to address two issues: a typical room and contents fire
and a cardiac arrest.
Fire Response Time Standards
The research shows that response times are based on the agency's ability to quickly respond prior to a flashover
condition (>10 minutes - time from the start of the fire to initial extinguishment). In addition, the research shows that
agencies must respond prior to the flashover condition with enough personnel to safely conduct a simultaneous rescue
and fire attack (-15 fire fighters).
The NFPA 1710 standard defines a 5 minute "total reflex" time, The NFPA 1710 standard matches Albemarle's current
urban fire response time standard.
The objective is to mitigate the fire before "flashover" occurs - the point at which the fire leaves the room of origin and
begins to impact the remainder of a structure or adjacent structures. The objective is to enhance survivability for cardiac
arrest patients (and by extension to improve the health outcome of those suffering from trauma or other serious illnesses).
The exhibit, below, displays a typical flashover curve for interior structure fires. The point in time represented by the
occurrence of flashover is critical because it defines when all of the contents of a room become involved in the fire. This
is also the point at which a fire typically shifts from "room and contents" to a "structure" fire - involving a wider area of the
building and posing a potential risk to structures surrounding the original location of the fire.
Generalized Flashover Curve
u..
C/)
w
W 1,;,00 --
0::
(!)
W
o
~
W
a:::
=>
!;(
a:::
w
0-
~
W
I-
FLASHOVER TE "'PERATURE
Exact Poont Depend1l on
Cor4acI TIme and _
P<:*lnlOat 01 Matenill6
3
5
7
li
11
MINUTES
This graph, above, depicts a fire from the moment of inception - not from the moment that a fire is detected or reported. It
demonstrates the criticality of early detection and fast reporting as well as the rapid dispatch of responding units. This
also shows the critical need for a rapid and sufficiently staffed initial response - a response with a rapid initial attack on a
fire prior to flashover. The points, below, describe the major changes that occur at time of flashover:
. It is the end of time for effective search and rescue in a room involved in the fire. It means the likely death of any
person trapped in the room - either civilian or Firefighter.
. Portable extinguishers can no longer have a successful control a blaze after flashover. Only larger hand-lines will have
enough water supply to affect a fire after this point.
. The fire has reached the end of the growth phase and has entered the fully developed phase. During this phase, every
combustible object is subject to the full impact of the fire.
Page 6
. This also signals the changeover from "contents" to "structure" fire. This is also the beginning of collapse danger for a
structure. Structural collapse begins to become a major risk at this point and reaches the highest point during the
decay stage of the fire (after the fire has been extinguished).
It should be noted that not every fire will reach flashover - and that not every fire will wait for the 8-minute mark to reach
flashover. A quickly responding fire crew can do things to prevent or delay the occurrence of flashover. These options
include:
. Application of portable extinguisher or other "fast attack" methodology.
. Venting the room to allow hot gases to escape before they can cause the ignition of other materials in the room.
· Not venting a room - under some circumstances this will actually stifle a fire and prevent flashover from occurring.
Each of these techniques requires the rapid response of appropriately trained fire suppression resources that can safely
initiate these actions. In the absence of automatic fire suppression systems, access to interior fires can be limited by a
safety requirement related to staffing levels. OSHA and related industry standards require the presence of at least two
Firefighters on the exterior of a building before entry can be made into a structure in which the environment has been
contaminated by a fire. In the absence of a threat to life demanding immediate rescue, interior fire suppression operations
are limited to the extent that a fire service delivery system can be staffed to assure a minimum of four people actively
involved in firefighting operations.
EMS Response Time Standards
The research shows that response times are based on the agency's ability to quickly respond and treat a victim suffering
from cardiac arrest or other type life threatening medical condition.
The American Heart Association (AHA) defines a 4 minute "total reflex" time for BLS calls and 8 minute reflex time for ALS
calls. The AHA standard matches Albemarle's current urban response time EMS standard.
The American Heart Association Chain of Survival outlines actions that must be taken in order to successfully resuscitate
victims in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. The measure for EMS must be considered in two different ways.
The first consideration is how fast basic life support can be provided to citizens who suffer from cardiac arrest. American
Heart Association studies have shown that cardio-pulmonary resuscitation (CPR) must begin immediately, and in all
cases no later than 4-6 minutes of a cardiac arrest. Early defibrillation (AED) must then follow early CPR. These actions
must be followed up by advanced life support in order to provide advanced coronary care. The combination of late CPR
(more than four minutes) and late advanced life support (more than 12 minutes) is particularly lethal. Several researchers
have called these time dimensions the resuscitation "failure zone." The second consideration is early advanced life
support intervention for patients that are not yet in cardiac arrest but have a cardiac rhythm that will become lethal if not
treated rapidly. The graphic below illustrates a patient's survival rate compared to the time to defibrillation,
IOO'lt
80'*
Gl
16 60'*
a:
;;
.:!
~ 41)'1\
Vi
20'*
U~
5Min
10Min
I ime tv Detib rillation
15 Nin
20M..
Page 7
Fractile response times are generally used (i.e. the percentage of time that the response times meet the guidelines). Most
organizations view a fractile response time within 90% of the time to be acceptable. A fractile measurement is considered
a more realistic reflection of the system's overall performance than average or median response times.
Every national organization that publishes response time requirements or guidelines suggests a 90% level of response
time reliability. These include:
· The National Fire Protection Agency
· The American Ambulance Association
· The Commission on Accreditation of Ambulance Services
· The National Association of EMS Physicians
Page 8
Appendix B - Pantops Risk Profile
The Pantops development area contains Martha Jefferson Hospital (1,170,000 sq. ft upon completion) and over 640 units
of progressive care, assisted living, and independent living. The area has over 850,000 sq. ft. of commercial/retail space
with an additional 380,000 sq. ft. in various planning stages. Over 2,200 residential units are expected which will likely
double the residential population4.
There are four primary factors that are used to determine fire and medical risk: total population, at risk population, at risk
facilities, and traffic volume. Listed below are the factors and a comparison between Pan tops and Crozet development
areas to show perspective5:
1. Total Population
Life/Safety Risk
Residential total
Daytime Population
Pantops
*2,100
4,050
Crozet
4,798
2,399
* residential population likely to double with the addition of planned residential developments
2. At Risk Population
The Pantops area is considered high risk due primarily to the large population of senior citizens. For citizens 65
and older, the fire fatality rates are more than twice the national average. For those over 75, they jump to three
times the national average, and for those over 85, they are four times the national average6.
Life/Safety Risk
At Risk Population (> 65 yrs. of age)
% of population at risk
Pantops
830
27%
Crozet
686
19%
3. At Risk Facilities
The majority of the Pantops senior citizens are living in elderly care facilities that have been constructed to meet
recent building codes and include detection or suppression systems, but still pose a risk to the occupants. In a
study of fires occurring in elderly care facilities, most of the injuries and deaths were attributed to relatively small
fires that produced toxic fumes before detection or suppression devices were activated?
· Martha Jefferson Outpatient 93,000 sq. ft. (Hospital will be 1,170,000 sq. ft upon completion)
· Over 640 units of elderly progressive care, assisted living, and independent living
4. Traffic Volume
During the 2006 period, fire and rescue were dispatched to over 65 traffic accidents in the Pantops area. The
large amount of traffic accidents are due primarily to the traffic volume. Listed below are the daily traffic volumes.
Traffic
Pantops
Richmond Rd & Stony
Point Rd
52,000
Crozet
Rt 250 and Rt 240
through Crozet
10,600
Volume (daily traffic volume)
4 Pantops Master Plan, 2007
5 United States Census, 2000 Data; Albemarle County GIS System, 2007
6 Center for Disease Control, 1998. Located at http://WWW.cdc.gov/ncipcJfactsheetslfire.htm
7 Vital and Health Statistics Series 13, No. 147, National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, 2000,
~
e
It ( RLI >rJrl) [.HI I::\H J/{( ,1..liI :.\1 . 1(.1 :\()
***AAAAAAAAA4*A*A
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
POUCE DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
To:
C1uef John F. Miller
MAR I) 1 lQll 7
County at AIbeman6
County ExACUtlv9'R 0Ib
From:
Lieutenant (; rcgory: \. J cnkms ~
Date:
February 26, 2007
Subject:
Police/Fire Regional Training Facility
The Albemarle County Police Department has been using the Rivanna Rifle and Pistol Club
as a firearms training facility for approximately ten years. The agency currently has ten FIrearms
Instructors and we are charged $100.00 per instructor for membership to the range and a $35.00
membership to the National Rifle Association per instructor each year. This is a cost of $1,350 for
the ten agency firearms instructors. Club members vote each year on whether to continue agency
membership. They will not permit any type of long term contract. Throughout the ten years our
e ageflCY has periodically been placed on a probationary status due to alleged violations of club rules.
Some of these violations have been unfounded or our agency has been punished because these
alleged violations have been committed by other agencies using the facility,
The current facility limits our ability to conduct the level of training needed each year. Many
training needs are not being met due to dub restrictions and physical limitations of the current
range. For example, our agency is restricted primarily to basic handgun and shotgun qualification.
Special arrangements must be made with the range to conduct remedial training for any officers
who fail to qualify. Rivanna Rifle and Pistol Club restrictions do not permit certain types of combat
and stress courses. Force on force (simmunition) training cannot be conducted. This type of
training is invaluable as it affords officers the ability to experience realism through scenario based
exercises such as traffic stops, domestic disturbances, etc. Another restriction is low light shooting
which can only be done on the indoor range during normal business hours. Statistics provided by
the FBI show that more officers were fatally injured in assaults that happened between 1 0:00pm -
midnight than any other time period. There is also limited space for officers to perform cleaning and
maintenance on their weapons,
Each year the agency must submit training dates to the range Board of Directors for
approval. The board must approve all training and the types of training prior to it being conducted.
This means submitting lesson plans and training outlines for review and approval. The Department
of Criminal Justice Services reviews our lesson plans in advance and all meet their training
standards. By having to submit the same lesson plans to the board only adds an additional layer of
unnecessary and time consuming work. Our agency competes with the Albemarle County Sheriff's
Office, Charlottesville Police Department, and the Charlottesville I Albemarle Regional Jail for
.-training dates each year which requires our instructors to plan for training a year in advance. Even
.with advance planning, Instructors routinely have to work around club members who want to utilize
the facility. On several occasions training has been modified, or delayed, because of club
members. It is impractical to share a firing range with club members. The skill level and proficiency
of individual club members are not comparable to that of law enforcement. For safety reasons,
a agency instructors must be extra vigilant anytime club members are using the range.
- The Tactical Team (SWAT) experiences problems because of the inability to shoot certain
types of combat courses. For example automatic weapons fire cannot be done without prior
approval and scout snipers can only use the rifle deck when an instructor is present. This rifle deck
is not adequate for distances greater than 100 yards. Club members will routinely show up to
observe training and have on occasion questioned the training being conducted.
A joint training facility, which includes a police firearms range, will afford the Albemarle
County Police Department the ability to conduct high quality training in a professional environment.
This training will better prepare officers to do their jobs more effectively and provide a higher level of
service to the citizens of Albemarle County.
e
e
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Bob Tucker, County Executive
Tom Foley, Asst. County Executive
From: Mark Graham, Director of Community Development
Date: 06 May 2007
Subject: Proffer Policy
In response what staff heard at the May 2nd Board meeting, we have attempted to list the questions that would
need to be addressed with a proffer policy. Please recognize this is an attempt to very quickly compile a list of
issues and we cannot claim this is an exhaustive list. With more time and careful analysis, it is possible other
issues important to this policy could be discovered. We have attached a list of those identified policy issues.
Next, we heard an interest in an accelerated process with the goal of completing this policy as quickly as possible
and an interest in assuring various interest groups are given the opportunity for meaningful participation in the
process. Recognizing those goals can conflict, we have attached two drafts of possible schedules for
consideration. Based on the advice of the County Attorney, both schedules assume this policy should be
incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan. Neither schedule should be considered a "take it or leave it", but
simply provide the Board some ideas as to how the process could be arranged.
. The first schedule simply looks at how quickly could the County incorporate a proffer policy into the
Comprehensive Plan without consideration for anything beyond the need for the Board to advise staff on
policy issues and the legal requirements with an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. This process
would rely on staff to very quickly complete an analysis and draft the language. This would require
several key staff to put aside current work on other initiatives and make this policy their primary focus for
the next several months. Additionally, public input would be limited to the public hearings, after the
policy has been drafted. This also anticipates both the Board and Planning Conunission would quicldy
resolve any issues without deferring a reconunendation or decision. Staff notes that public participation
is minimal in this process, which combined with the quick turnaround, increases the likelihood of issues
being discovered after the fact.
. The second schedule proposes a process where we take a little more time on the front end for analysis,
the public has an opportunity to participate before the policy language is proposed, and both the Planning
Conunission and Board would have more time for deliberations. While this process is 110t the "drop
everything" described above, it does assume this will be a priority effort and that will require so::ne
reprioritization of staff s work program. Those impacts are being evaluated with the presumption that
work Board's Strategic Plan (e.g. master plans, Rural Areas implementation) should remain on schedule,
but all other items would be considered a lower priority than the proffer policy.
Cc: Larry Davis, County Attorney
Wayne Cilimberg, Conununity Development
Attachment 1: Policy issues to consider
Attachment 2: Policy schedules
,
Attashment1
Policy Issues to Consider
1. Is there an expectation that all new re-zonings will pay for the equivalent of their full impact as
determined by the cash proffer calculations?
Put another way, is it the Board's policy to expect that all new development will pay its own way to the
extent possible under the law? (Also, see #3 and #4 below)
2. Is there a size of development below which the policy will not apply?
For example, would this policy be applied to an in-fill project which divides one lot into two?
3, Does the policy apply to the total development proposed in the re-zonings or only the additional
development above what is by-right?
For example, Belvedere was over 800 units but had the same density possible without rezoning the
property. What if the rezoning only adds 10% to the by-right density? Not providing a credit for the by-
right could create a disincentive for rezoning to a better form, but all of the units create a demand for
infrastructure.
4. Are dwelling units that meet the County's definition of "affordable" exempt from the policy and the
value of affordable housing provided exclusive of the cash proffer amount?
Each affordable unit creates a demand for infrastructure, but the cash proffer amount can increase the
difficulty of providing this affordable unit.
5. Should "credits" against the calculated cash amount be provided for:
. Affordable units in excess of the County's policy (currently 15%)?
. Proffers for land/facilities on the development site that are called for in the Comp Plan or identified
in the ClF? (e.g. school site in the development)
. Proffers for land/facilities off of the development site that are called for in the Comp Plan or
identified in the CIP? (e.g. school site on another piece of property)
. Proffers for services or other recommendations in the Comp Plan not otherwise anticipated in the CIP
(e.g. transit)?
. Comprehensive Plan consistency (e.g. consideration of projects in a designated priority area)?
. Other design issues (e.g. LEED certified structures, public space in developments)?
. Conservation Easements that capture Development Rights?
(For each of the above that are anticipated as quantifiable credits, staff will need to prepare a
methodology for the Board's consideration.)
6. Which of the following are considered non-credit conditions:
. Proffers for land/facilities that are not called for in the Comp Plan or identified in the ClF? (e.g.
parkland not in ClF)
. Impacts occasioned by the development and not included in the cash proffer calculations? (e.g. road
improvements beyond the ClF and Comp Plan which are necessitated by this development)
7 . How should inflation factors be addressed in the proffer policy? (e.g. indexed from approval dates)?
,
~
:2
.D
Q)
'LL
Q;
t,
m c
a!~
<fl
()
<D
:0
I
1--1
>:
,0
iZ,
,~--
~I
2;
~ ~
:0 ()
010
.r:
~;
Q.
<D
,(fJ
,en
i~!
~H
Q)i I
~[ I
8i~i
1:" I
'" I
---..---j
!
cl
:01
--'1
I
co
CO
~
:2,
J+
I
~1
11'''
to
N
r,
lI.
<fl
-'"
<fl
m
I-
r;;
c
Q;
X
ill
<D
C
o
Ui
~
~
r;;
c
Q;
X
ill
Q)
,!;:
U
m
Q)
o
. Q)
en
m
>- 0-
~
E
E
Q) >- :0
C ~ (fJ
0 E 13
Ui Q)
~ E '0'
~ :0 0::
Ul
_.~---_._~-,.~--'~"-~~~~-~-~-_._.~~----
<fl en
<fl :2'
Q) C
:0 .9 <D 0
<fl Ui " ~ :E
.~ Q) Q) C
>- :0 " '5 g <fl en 0
Q) en c
." <fl cr Q) 0 :0 :2' c C 0 C 'Vi
0 Q) >- c >- "5 Q) c en 0 'Vi .~ '1)
Q. :0 g ," Co :0 E 0 c ,!;: 'Vi <fl Q)
en <fl 0 .- 0- 0 'Vi >- 0 ~ '1) Q) Q) 0
<fl Q; C C' 0 .E :E E <fl ," I <fl
Q) en .~ ,~ Q. Q. C,,) Q) 'Vi Q) <D (fJ oC:I <fl
:0 3 C >- c 0 .~ 0- 0 <fl 0 <fl I 0 -'" ." Q)
<fl <fl .~ Q) ." 0 'iij 2 :c =0 g () -'" Q. Q) 0 c :0 Ol a,
.!Q C I 0 <fl m :0 en 0 <fl ." oC:I 0 :0 C -'"
m c Q) '0 ::l c rn .Y. ~ <fl 0
I/) >- Q) ," I/) Q. 0 <fl c.. 0 ::J ~ ~ 0 :0 en 'iij 0- .~ m 0. 0::
." .8 rn I en 'E 'iij -'" a. CO 0- -0 C :0 .!;: <fl <D I- Ul
I/) :0 I/) '0 0 " Q) " ~ 0 0- ~ " Q) "
CIl 0 c -0 ,,,, :0 C CIl Ql <fl Ql 'E c <fl 'iij ~ ~ I
Q) ~ E ~ (fJ
() 0- 0 :0 0- en .~ () E <fl <fl ~ Qi Ql '0 Q. C,,) <fl C,,) Q) 0 0 ,"
'Vi <( C '00 0 0 0 r;; I -'"
0 '5 :0 " .~ Q) 0 Co >- .Y. 0. E --, Q) 0- Q) 0- CO 0 CO :0
.... <fl 0- 0- I 0 " CO N CO Q; > <fl g
Ie.. Q) C,,) ~ .... 0 r;; ~ E Ql OJ U .~ U > e Ql -'" Ql Ql ~ OJ :0
en <fl C,,) 0 OJ ." e.. Qj C 3 0 .5 ~ <D :; 0 ~ :0 :; <fl 0-
C .Y. '0 I 0 0- 0- .,
"0 ~ 0 0- CO :0 > m 1:' CO u a; :;; E " Co " ~ Q; :0 " 1:' Q; "0
." .S:! Ql Co Q) 0- <D
CIl 3: Q. OJ Ql :0 Q rn m "0 rn a: > C E C rn <( .r: > .r: III > ~
'- '5 1:' .~ ~ :0 0- iV Uj 0 c Uj >- "0 '0 :0 '0 Uj >- u C,,) "0 C,,) U 0 "0 0
OJ 11I 0 Q. :0 "0 >- CO N <( --, (fJ --, (fJ 0- <( 0- m CO <( CO
E "S; "0 :;; :;; 0- E .~ .~ .~
ltl rn ~ rn > > ~ '0 '0 '0
Z CIl Uj 0 "0 "0 C,,) 0 CIl
.... CO Ui <( <( 0- CO Ui c.. c.. c..
.Y. ,,Q
<fl ,,Q >-
III [< CJ)
I-
~ "-
~o
u~
rn rn rn rn .~~
c 01./')
0:: <D
:0
'dl-
co Q) '0 N '" ,..". C\J OJ ..
9 N N N C\J iN '" '02
~ m
a.o