2008-10-24October 24, 2008 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 1)
An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
October 24, 2008, beginning at 9:00 a.m., at the Virginia Department of Forestry Building, Fontaine
Research Park, 900 Natural Resources Drive, Charlottesville, Virginia, for purposes of holding a Strategic
Planning Retreat. The meeting was adjourned from October 22, 2008.
PRESENT: Mr. Kenneth C. Boyd, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Mr. Dennis S. Rooker, Mr. David
Slutzky, Ms. Sally H. Thomas and Ms. Ann Mallek.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W . Tucker, Jr., Assistant County Executive,
Thomas Foley, Assistant County Executive, Bryan Elliott, County Attorney, Larry W . Davis, Clerk, Ella W .
Jordan, Senior Deputy Clerk, Meagan Hoy, Strategic Management Coordinator, Lori Allshouse and
Community Relations Director, Lee Catlin.
_______________
Welcome
At 9:12 a.m., Mr. Boyd called the meeting to order and thanked everyone for their attendance.
Mr. Boyd said before beginning the Strategic Planning Retreat, he thinks the Board needs to
follow-up on its discussion from W ednesday on the direction the Board is heading with Fire and Rescue
services. He thinks it is incumbent upon the Board to step up to the plate and set some defined definitions
on how it wants to move forward with the Fire and Rescue structure. Board members have received a
number of e-mails and there has been information put on the website with different methodologies for
establishing a fire organization. He thought this Board was committed to a Fire Chief structure as
opposed to a committee structure for Fire and Rescue services. He thinks this is a decision that is
paramount that the Board of Supervisors make at the beginning and this Board needs to step up to the
plate. If the Board does not make that decision there will be a lot of discussions over the next couple
months on that single point, and there will be disagreements on which way to go.
Mr. Rooker said there are a number of structures within a structure. For example, there can be a
Fire Chief with a number of structures below it. The same applies to the committee structure. He agrees
that it is a basic decision that needs to be made. Otherwise the Board will be sending people off to look at
options that ultimately it would not consider.
Mr. Slutzky agreed with Mr. Rooker. If there is agreement that the Board wants Dan Eggleston to
be Fire Chief and in charge then it would be a useful signal to state that and keep people from going down
a wasteful path.
Ms. Mallek said she thinks all the plans that are being considered include a chief; it is how that
position will function is the difference. She thinks that no decision should be made until all the options
have been looked at.
Mr. Slutzky commented that the Board has been looking at this for a long time.
Mr. Boyd said this is a management decision of the Board. He thought the Board had already
reached a consensus to have a Fire Chief structure and not a committee structure. He has a lot of
knowledge about organizational structures and how they work, and how decisions are made. It is not
going to change his mind to read any more about a committee structure.
Ms. Mallek said how the volunteers are brought into the system and how they function is a lot
different from a corporate structure. She does not understand why this diversion is necessary because no
one said there would not be a Fire Chief.
Mr. Dorrier said the Board of Supervisors are the ones that need to make the decision.
Mr. Slutzky said he agrees with the Chairman that there needs to be clarity or direction given to
the committee in terms of how they will be moving forward in the next couple of months. It is also
important that part of the clarification is that if the Board is in agreement that we make it clear that our
expected structure of governance consists of the Board of Supervisors, Fire Chief and then whatever
organizational structure the committee agrees to collaboratively, and supported by this Board.
Ms. Mallek said she does not understand why this discussion is going on today after what
happened last night and especially when people were present to hear the discussion.
Mr. Boyd said the discussion is occurring today because he can foresee that in the next couple of
months there are going to be two separate groups on differing sides, and the volunteer firefighters are
going to want a committee approach with the Fire Chief being a member of the committee, with no
authority, and the committee making the decisions. He thinks this Board needs to make the decision
before the battle lines are drawn too far. He is convinced that the type of structure will come back to the
Board.
Ms. Mallek said she thinks everyone went away hearing the Board direct the staff to work with the
volunteers and that is all being negated now.
Mr. Rooker said he does not agree with that.
October 24, 2008 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 2)
Ms. Thomas agreed that it is also being negated.
Ms. Mallek said she thinks it would be a big mistake to countermine what occurred last night.
There is a tremendous urgency on everyone’s side to make this function.
Mr. Rooker said the Board has to be sensitive to the fact that you can create and exacerbate the
situation by not making a decision. He agrees with the approach that was taken the other day. In his
opinion the Board hired a Fire Chief to be their representative to work with the volunteers. He is in charge
below the Board. There is a multitude of processes that can be set up. He noticed in some of the e-mails
that have been going around did not even copy Dan Eggleston. He thinks the point needs to be made that
the Fire Chief is the Board’s representative that deals with the fire system. He is not talking about how the
structure underneath that ultimately comes out. He does not want to end up with something with two
months of people working to exclude the Fire Chief from important decisions regarding the fire system. In
his opinion any organization needs a place where the buck stops.
Mr. Dorrier said Ms. Mallek has a point. Communication and trust are an issue.
Mr. Boyd expressed agreement but said this Board needs to provide leadership. He firmly
believes the Fire Chief structure is the way to go. He does not think the Fire Chief should report to a
committee and that is one structure that should be taken off the table.
Ms. Thomas suggested the Board make a motion that states just in case it was not clear at this
week’s meeting, that by hiring a Fire Chief several years ago and working within the Board of Supervisors’
support of a strong Fire Chief structure, the Board wants to work out a situation that respects and
facilitates the volunteer fire and rescue system within a strong Fire Chief structure.
Mr. Slutzky said he would add to that motion that the expected structure would include the
volunteers working closely with the Chief who in turn reports to the Board and the Board expects the Chief
to be its conduit.
Ms. Mallek said the advisory boards for the two people who came to speak to the Board are
involved in policy changes and both structures involve a Chief and policy. She added that that sort of
clarity is a great step in the right direction.
Ms. Thomas said she would not go any stronger with language than what she stated because this
Board was just told by a room full of people that there is a lack of trust. She believes that Dan Eggleston
did a great job at the end of the meeting by standing up and summarizing what he thought this Board did,
and this Board agreed with him. She does not think this Board should be giving any further direction at
this time.
Mr. Boyd said he thinks we need a structured mechanism for coming up with this ordinance. He
thinks the Board should establish a committee with equal representation from both groups including a
representative of the Board of Supervisors and staff. That will allow input by everyone. He wants this to
be a collaborative effort with direction and leadership from this Board.
Ms. Mallek said she expected that Mr. Boyd and herself as liaisons would be involved in all the
meetings.
Mr. Rooker said he also supports Ms. Thomas recommended motion.
Mr. Boyd said he and Ms. Mallek were involved in their strategic planning sessions and there were
lines of allegiance drawn; one said there should be a committee that runs the Fire Department, with Dan
Eggleston reporting to the committee, and the committee reporting to the Board of Supervisors. Again, he
does not think that is an option he is willing to consider. There needs to be a strong Fire Chief that works
collaboratively with the volunteers.
Ms. Mallek commented that it was not fair to take individual comments made at a strategic
planning session and say that it is a threat to our current organization. That was a discussion by people
who finally had a chance to say what was on their minds.
Mr. Slutzky said if it is not an option the Board will consider then it should be made clear now so
that no one goes down that path.
Mr. Rooker said it is clear that the consensus of the Board is to have a strong Fire Chief, and that
he work collaboratively with the volunteers and the paid staff to create a system that functions with a
strong emphasis on maintaining and improving the volunteers and professionalism of the entire operation.
He does not know that the Board needs to make a motion or pass a resolution. He does think it is
necessary to create a committee to move forward with this process and bring a recommendation back to
the Board.
Mr. Boyd suggested a committee of six: two Supervisors, two staff and two volunteers.
Ms. Mallek and Mr. Rooker agreed.
Mr. Tucker suggested he ask the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Albemarle County Fire and
Rescue Advisory Committee (ACFRAC) to recommend two members to the committee.
October 24, 2008 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 3)
Mr. Eggleston said he understands the message from the Board, but he thinks it is important that
it sets out clarifying responsibilities. He believes there needs to be written communication from this Board
to the volunteer leaders. That is the clarity needed to move forward.
Mr. Tucker reiterated that the message from today’s discussion needs to come from this Board.
Motion was then offered by Ms. Thomas that just in case it was not clear at this week’s meeting,
that by hiring a Fire Chief and working with him, the Board of Supervisors’ supports a strong Fire Chief
structure, and wants to work out a structure that respects and facilitates the volunteer fire and rescue
system. Further, the Board directs Mr. Tucker to form a committee consisting of two Board of
Supervisors’ members, two members from ACFRAC, and two staff members, one consisting of Mr.
Eggleston. Mr. Slutzky seconded the motion.
Roll was then called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Mallek.
NAYS: None.
__________
The following minutes are a summary of the Board’s Strategic Planning Retreat:
Desired Outcomes:
1. The Board discusses the County’s progress, upcoming challenges and opportunities, County
trends, and citizen expectations.
2. The Board has an increased understanding of the Five Year Financial Outlook and resources
needed to meet County’s priorities.
3. The Board provides direction to staff regarding aligning the Strategic Plan with the Five Year
Financial Plan.
Overview of Strategic Planning Retreat
Mr. Tucker provided an overview of the retreat and desired outcomes. He stated that the County
is facing difficult economic times. W e need to focus and align our strategic plan with the Five Year
Financial Plan, and look at possibly changing the timeline and other considerations to move the Plan
forward. He stated that staff hopes to come away with guidance from the Board that helps staff to develop
an updated Five Year Financial Plan.
Ms. Catlin stated she would be facilitating the meeting and then reviewed the Retreat agenda with
the Board. She added that this is the Board’s day to make sure the financial realities and the Strategic
Plan realistically match up.
__________
Quick Review Highlights from Work Session
Board Discussion
• Strategic Plan’s role in directing organizational efforts
Ms. Allshouse briefly reviewed the information provided to the Board at its October 8 Strategic
Plan work session.
Board members then shared their thoughts regarding the Strategic Plan’s role in directing
organizational efforts. All Board members stated that the strategic planning efforts have been positive for
the organization. It assists the Board in speaking as one voice regarding County priorities and is useful in
communicating and guiding employees’ efforts. Board members shared that they are pleased with staff’s
efforts, the plan’s flexibility, the fact that the Strategic Planning Objectives have become more specific and
noted how the strategic planning process provides a mechanism for the Board to govern. Board members
also were pleased that staff is blending the financial picture with the current plan.
__________
The following three items were not discussed due to timing constraints:
• Emerging Trends and Citizen’s Views
• Areas of the strategic plan showing positive progress
• Areas of the strategic plan facing significant challenges
___________
Five Year Financial Outlook
Mr. Foley provided an update on the County’s Five Year financial outlook and shared the following
information regarding potential adjustments to the FY 09 and FY 10 budgets:
October 24, 2008 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 4)
5-Yr Financial Plan - Potential FY09 & 10 Adjustments
Previous Discussion Update
Projected Total FY09 Revenue Shortfall ($4.1 million) ($4.9 million)
Beginning LG Financial Plan Shortfall
Includes continued FY08 savings
17 frozen & ($500,000) operating
(9.3 million) (10.1 million)
Reduced operational expenditures Reduce discretionary
spending, prepare 5%
contingencies
Immediate
implementation of
additional $1 million
Expanded Hiring Freeze FY08: 17 positions
FY09: 15 positions
Total: 32 positions
FY08: 17 positions
FY09: 25 positions
FY10: 15 positions
Total: 57 positions
Salary Increase 3.93% (market) None
Increase to Agencies 2% 0%
Board-planned 5-Year Plan programs Eliminated Eliminated
Use of “lockbox” funds No Yes
Reduction in Capital Transfer None 1 cent
Use of Board Reserve None $200,000
Projected FY10 Shortfall - Adjusted ($5.5 million) ($1.8 million)
In addition, Mr. Foley provided the Board with the following highlights regarding the preliminary
financial outlook for Years 2-5 of Five-Year Financial Plan:
Revenues
• Assumes one cent tax increase in year two
• Assumes slow economic recovery and real estate value increases
Expenditures
• Meets basic obligations
• Includes minimal baseline increases
• Includes salary and benefit increases
• Includes minimal school increases based on projected revenues
• Maintains frozen positions
• Delays expansion of new services until years 4 & 5
• Delays or eliminates various capital projects
He noted that staff will be finalizing the Five Year Financial Plan for the Board’s review during their
work sessions in November.
__________
Staff Insights and Considerations
Ms. Allshouse, Mr. Foley and Mr. Elliott reviewed County staff’s performance “score card” for the
Strategic Plan which divided the performance of the Strategic Plan Objectives into three categories:
Category 1 – green) those objectives that are “complete” or “near-complete” as the Strategic
Objective Statement is worded, or
Category 2 - yellow) those objectives that the County is making progress on, however, there are
challenges to overcome, or
Category 3 - red) those objectives in which the County is facing significant challenges
Staff placed the following 3 Objectives as Category 1 (green):
1.1. Collaboration with School Division
4.2. Rural Area Strategies
5.1. Development of a comprehensive funding plan/strategy.
Staff placed the following five Objectives as Category 2 (yellow):
1.2. Affordable Housing
1.3. Economic Vitality
1.4. Public Safety (added to the Strategic Plan in June 2008)
October 24, 2008 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 5)
2.1. Conservation Easements and Qualifying Parkland
2.2. W ater Resources
Staff placed the following two Objectives as Category 3 (red):
4.1. Master Plans
3.1. Transportation
Ms. Allshouse, Mr. Foley and Mr. Elliott shared information regarding strategic plan progress, staff
insights, and provided suggestions, ideas, and questions for the Board to consider.
After the presentation, Board members were given the opportunity to provide their own scorecard
for the Strategic Plan’s ten objectives.
Category 1 – green: The Board agreed that there has been progress regarding the collaboration
with Schools objective, as well as the objective regarding the development of a comprehensive funding
strategy/plan and that these two objectives could be considered as complete or nearly so. All but one
Board member agreed that the Rural Area Strategies Objective is complete or nearly so. One Board
member scored this Objective in Category 2, indicating that there has been progress, but the Objective is
one that is facing challenges.
Category 2 – yellow: All Board members agreed with staff’s assessment regarding those five
objectives that were classified as Category 2.
Mixed results: Three Board members classified the Master Plan Objective as Category 2 while
the other three agreed with staff that the objective is facing significant challenges and classified it as
Category 3.
Category 3 – red: The majority of the Board agreed that the Transportation Objective is facing
significant challenges. One Board member scored it as Category 2, suggesting that while the
achievement of this objective is facing challenges, the County is making progress and the challenges are
not significant.
__________
At 12:30 p.m., the Board recessed for lunch. The Board reconvened at 1:35 p.m., with everyone
present.
__________
Board Discussion
Should the County alter its approach regarding the County’s Strategic Plan priorities?
• Adjust timing?
• Reallocate resources (within the existing budget)?
• Increase resources?
• Should the County consider adjustments in the CIP program?
The Board discussed each Strategic Objective in greater detail and provided the following
direction to staff to improve the alignment of the Strategic Plan with the Five Year Plan:
Goal 1: Quality of Life
Objective 1.1. By June 30, 2009, the Board of Supervisors and General Government employees
will increase collaborative efforts with the School Board and with employees of the school system to assist
the School Division to achieve recognition as a “world class education system.”
The Board acknowledged that collaboration with the School Board and School Division employees
has increased since this priority was identified in 2006 and that collaboration efforts would not end when
this objective timeline does. Mr. Slutzky suggested the Collaboration Objective should be considered
complete when the School Division obtains its recognition from SPQA or Baldridge, which is the
recognition performance measure identified by the School Division for their goal. The majority of the Board
directed staff to consider this objective, as written in the County’s Strategic Plan, to be completed in June
2009 when the School Division’s current strategic plan cycle is scheduled to end.
Objective 1.2. By June 30, 2010, working in partnership with others, increase affordable housing
opportunities for those who work and/or live in Albemarle County
The Board agreed with the following considerations:
1) Consider City/County Task Force Recommendations
2) Reappropriate FY08 fund and establish a special fund
3) W eigh progress again next fall and adjust goal completion or carry forward to
next Strategic Plan
The Board encouraged continued work with the Southwood community. Mr. Slutzky and Mr.
Rooker requested follow up information be provided to the Board regarding the Affordable Housing
October 24, 2008 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 6)
Performance Indicators 2 and 3. For example, how many people participated in the Homebuyer
Education Programs and whether the County is maintaining its goal to provide 35 families with assistance
to purchase homes each fiscal year, and if the County is not, why? Board members stated they wondered
whether the strategies to achieve the performance indicators for this objective could be improved. Mr.
Slutzky suggested that after the Board receives its recommendations from the Housing Task Force,
perhaps the performance indicators should be revisited at that time. In addition, the Board directed staff to
ensure that the Housing Committee understands this conversation and reviews the benchmarks. Finally,
the Board encouraged more public/private partnerships for this objective and to assist with the
achievement of all the objectives included in the Strategic Plan.
Objective 1.3. Economic Vitality – By June 30, 2010, the County will:
Maintain a strong and sustainable economy
Increase the economic vitality of the County’s Development Areas
Increase the ability of those individuals and families, who are living in lower income households, to
become self-sufficient.
The Board agreed with the following considerations:
1) Continue membership in Thomas Jefferson Partnership for Economic
Development and Chamber of Commerce
The majority of the Board agreed with the following considerations:
2) Continue funding for Economic Opportunity Fund
3) Board should review and approve Guidelines for use of Economic Opportunity
Fund
The Board agreed to discuss this objective further during the Board’s upcoming discussion of the
Comprehensive Plan Economic Development Policy revision on November 10 and further recommended
that the County continue its efforts in workforce development. Mr. Slutzky stated he may or may not
support the use of the Economic Opportunity Fund. Mr. Dorrier encouraged staff to continue its focus on
work force development.
Objective 1.4. By June 30, 2010, enhance the safety of our County by improving emergency
response times and increasing prevention activities and services.
Board members directed staff to extend the completion date for this objective to 2014 and agreed
with the following considerations suggested by staff:
1) Exercise Option to Extend City/County Fire Services Contract
2) Open Pantops FY 2013 & Ivy FY 2014
3) Continue to increase Police staffing when financially feasible
4) Extend completion date of the objective to 2014
5) Attempt to bring/keep children in care in community
Board members provided several additional suggestions. First, the Board would like to further
discuss response time goals that are included in the County’s Comprehensive Plan. In addition, since it is
getting harder for the County to add Police officers towards meeting the County’s Police staffing
standards, the Board instructed staff to further examine the police staffing goal which is currently included
in the Comprehensive Plan. In addition, Mr. Dorrier stated he would like to learn more about the alternative
prevention measures that are provided for the Regional Jail’s population and how many inmates are from
out of the area. Ms. Thomas suggested that the County recognize Bright Stars, Family Support and other
prevention programs to be an important part of this objective. Ms. Mallek encouraged active engagement
with residents while working on this objective and suggested that the County work long-term towards
developing a regional borderless fire/rescue system.
Goal 2: Protect the County’s Natural Resources
Objective 2.1. By June 30, 2010, increase the total combined acreage in permanent
conservation easements and qualifying public parkland by 30,000 additional acres (50%) using public and
provide means.
The Board agreed with the staff’s following considerations:
1) Given the County’s current financial situation, the Board agreed to reluctantly place the
County’s provision of approximately $1.6 million for the ACE Program each year on the table. This
option will be discussed further during the upcoming Five Year Financial Plan work sessions
2) Increase focus on partnerships and public education
3) Consider long term goals of the program and whether or not additional or new measures
should be taken to fund the program
October 24, 2008 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 7)
Ms. Thomas stated it would not be good to cut back now as the County is getting better
applications. Mr. Slutzky suggested the County consider other strategic options to assist in achieving this
objective in lieu of committing the entire $1.6 million in the upcoming budget. For example, in the coming
year, the County could consider providing a certain amount of funds towards marketing and intensive
outreach and community education regarding the benefits of placing land in conservation easements.
Board members shared concerns as to whether people understand the Conservation Easement Program.
The Board requested staff provide them with an information sheet that demonstrated how tax credits
work for hypothetical properties.
Objective 2.2. By June 20, the County, working in cooperation with Rivanna W ater and Sewer
Authority and others, will increase the quantity, supply and protection of the County’s water resources.
Board members agreed with the follow considerations suggested by staff:
1) Continue to focus efforts on storm water facility development and maintenance
2) Continue to pursue enhancement projects where possible with grant/local funding
3) Focus future Board discussion on considering an enhanced level of service for water
protection and options to fund that level of service
Further, Ms. Thomas suggested that when the County develops its next Strategic Plan revision,
additional water-related topics should be considered, such as rain water harvesting, drought prevention,
riparian buffers, a more proactive stormwater program, and the new DRC mandates. Mr. Rooker
emphasized that staff should continue to pursue grants in this area.
Mr. Foley mentioned that staff and the Board will be holding a conversation as to whether the
County would be going forward with the Stormwater Service utility.
Goal 3: Develop Policies and Infrastructure Improvements to Address the County’s
Growing Needs.
Objective 3.1. By June 30, 2010, expand regional transit opportunities, while accelerating the
completion of the Meadow Creek Parkway, 2 local, and 2 regional transportation projects.
Board members agreed with the follow considerations suggested by staff:
1) Given the County’s current financial situation, current on-going sources of revenue to fund
road and transit priorities (equivalent to 2 cents on tax rate) is on the table for consideration. This
option will be discussed further during the upcoming Five Year Financial Plan work sessions.
2) Hold a work session to make determinations regarding:
a. Allocation of local funds between roads and transit
b. Allocation of local road funding between state road supplements and local/master plan
needs.
3) Consider state road supplements and local/master plan needs as the County prioritizes
road projects for use of local funds
4) Commit to regional transit authority assuming no new State revenues
5) Extend completion date of this objective to 2012
The Board concluded it needs to hold a work session regarding spending the nearly $6 million
currently available for transportation in the CIP, make a determination regarding the future allocation of
local funds between roads and transit as well as future allocations of local funds between State road
supplements and local/master plan needs. The Board recognized that the County is unlikely to receive
State funding authority for transit. The Board agreed that the County should determine whether to go
forward with the request for enabling authority, and whether the County should assess the level of
interest from the City for a transit authority if enabling legislation is not enacted. This will be brought
back to the Board before any determinations regarding legislation is made. In addition, with the State’s
current funding situation, Mr. Dorrier suggested the County take a closer look at road maintenance
issues.
Goal 4: Effectively Manage the County’s Growth and Development.
Objective 4.1. By June 2010, increase citizen satisfaction with the County’s Development Areas,
by completing Master Plans for all of the County’s Development Areas.
Board members agreed with the follow considerations suggested by staff:
Considerations:
Focus on completing master plans underway, the Crozet master plan update and
implementation activities for completed plans.
October 24, 2008 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 8)
Combine southern urban area master plans into one master plan.
Extend completion of this objective to FY 11-12.
Consider whether the County should continue its current level of funding for urban
infrastructure
The Board agreed that the on-going revenue stream for CIP urban infrastructure should be on the
table in the upcoming Five Year Financial Plan. Mr. Boyd requested a cost-accounting of the costs
expended by the County for Master Plans (staff and consultant costs be provided to the Board). The
Board agreed that this objective should be continued until FY 11/12 and confirmed staff’s planned
sequencing of master planning. Complete Rivanna and Places 29, complete Crozet revision, and to
complete the Southern Urban Areas as one Master Plan. Ms. Thomas and Mr. Slutzky agreed that given
current times, people would understand some master plans may need to be delayed. It was noted that
additional Board discussion could be held on this topic when Community Development Department brings
forth their work plan.
Objective 4.2. By June 30, 2010, increase the protection of the County’s rural areas by
implementing the key strategies of the Rural Area Plan.
Board members agreed with the follow considerations suggested by staff:
Considerations:
W hile some strategies were not enacted and shortages some efforts have been
restricted, staff has nearly completed its efforts to implement the key strategies of the rural area
plan
Consider this objective to be completed country store zoning amendment is completed
Redirect rural area staff efforts to conservation easements objective
Board members requested a work session to review the strategies in the Rural Area chapter of
the Comprehensive Plan and to revisit the possibility of the development of a new Rural Area objective
during plan revision.
Goal 5: Fund the County’s Future Needs.
Objective 5.1. By June 30, 2010, develop a comprehensive funding strategy/plan to address the
County’s growing needs.
Board members agreed with the follow considerations suggested by staff:
Considerations:
The County developed a long-range comprehensive funding plan and process
In fall 2007, Board adopted first comprehensive five year financial plan that sets direction,
establishes long-range priorities, and guides the annual budget processes
The five year financial planning process will continue
Consider this objective to be complete
The Board agreed that the County has developed a Five Year Financial model and that this
objective, as written is complete. The Board mentioned they would like to be able to access and review
financial information and to be able to analyze impacts of changes to the budget with improved
technology. Staff mentioned AccessAlbemarle will provide improved technology in this area.
__________
October 24, 2008 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 9)
Wrap Up; Next Steps
Mr. Tucker noted that he thought this was the best Strategic Plan Retreat we have held thus far.
He requested direction from the Board regarding whether or not staff should begin building next year’s
recommended budget on the current effective tax rate. The Board directed Mr. Tucker to provide them
with different scenarios, including one that includes the effective tax rate. Mr. Tucker responded that staff
would provide the Board with two alternatives.
__________
Adjourn
W ith no further business, Mr. Boyd adjourned the meeting at 4:07 p.m.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by Board
Date: 12/03/2008
Initials: EW J