Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-03-13 adj000 143 March 13, 1995 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 1) An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on March 13, 1995, at 1:00 P.M., Room 241, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. This meeting was ad- journed from March 6, 1995. PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman (arrived at 1:14 p.m.), Ms. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr. (arrived at 1:08 p.m.), Mr. Charles S. Martin (arrived at 1:05 p.m.), Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Ms. Sally H. Thomas. ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Deputy County Executive, Richard E. Huff, II, and Executive Assistant, Roxanne W. White. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 1:05 p.m., by the Chairman, Mr. Perkins. Agenda Item No. 2. WORK SESSION 1995-96 COUNTY BUDGET: Budget Overview of Major Issues - Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Execu- tive. Mr. Tucker said he would not make a formal presentation of the budget today because he did that previously, and he also had discussed the proposed budget in detail at the preliminary public hearing. He then provided an update on the Board's Reserve Fund. The beginning Reserve Fund was $200,419. Added to that amount was $36,515 from restoration of the State 599 Funds, $309,875 from restoration of Commissioner of Revenue/Treasurer (Director of Finance in Albemarle County) Funds, less $25,000 which was added to the Capital Projects Reserve Fund. This provides a net beginning Reserve Fund of $521,809. At the last meeting between the Board of Supervisors and the School Board, staff was instructed to build the budget based on a two percent merit pool and a two percent scale adjustment for employees. Several members asked for an analysis to show what the impact of that might be on various salaried positions. Staff studied a $15,000 salaried position and a $30,000 salaried position. When the increased health insurance premium was factored into the $15,000 salary, the two percent actually netted a decrease. When the in- creased health insurance premium was factored into the $30,000 salary, the two percent netted about a 1.2 percent increase. Mr. Tucker said he would like to mention the merit pool itself. With a two percent merit pool, 93 percent of employees would not receive a vested merit, or only 21 employees in local government would receive a one-step vesting. He said the School Board placed on their ~Unfunded Priority List" an increase in the merit pool from two percent to two and one-half percent. If the Board supports adding one-half of one percent to the merit pool, it would require $108,234 for both local government and the schools jointly to fund that increase. Mr. Tucker then handed out an analysis of salaries over the past six years in an attempt to show the impact of salary increases over a longer period of time. He said this information is given out today for the Board to consider when discussing whether or not to increase the merit pool. Mr. Tucker said the Sheriff had requested that the Board consider again the constitutional officer's salaries, and whether or not to put these persons on the County's pay scale or to give a stipend. The Board also received a letter from the Electoral Board about the salary of the Registrar. He said that staff did an analysis of the request from the Sheriff and looked at moving all of the Sheriff's Department positions onto the County's pay scale. It would cost from $45,000 to $60,000 to make such a change. The other alternative is to consider stipends. Other localities are doing this now. (Note: Mr. Bowerman arrived at the meeting at 1:14 p.m.) If the Board chose the stipend approach and used two percent for that stipend, staff would suggest that each year there was an increase for local government employees, the stipend be increased by that amount. A stipend would not be as costly, and a stipend could be provided to all employees in the offices of the constitutional officers for less than $25,000. He said staff needs to know how the Board feels about this issue in order to provide some final numbers March 13, 1995 (Adjourned Meeting)~ (Page 2) for the budget at the final work session. 000144 He said that unless the Board members had questions, he was ready to begin work on the departmental budgets. Ms. Thomas said employees have mentioned before that because of the increase in health insurance premiums, they end up with a negative salary adjustment. She asked if the staff could analyze that. Mr. Tucker said staff is recommending that the County pay 90 percent of the employee's share of the health insurance premium next year. It is because insurance in general increases that the individual's salary is impacted. Staff can determine how much it would cost if the County were to pay 100 percent of the employee's share. Ms. Thomas said that is not what she was thinking about. She was curious to know how a person's salary in 1990 compares to what that person is receiving today. Ms. Humphris said she thinks that in the future when the Board starts to talk about paying an even higher percentage of health insurance for the employee, the Board will need data on how that impacts the usage of health insurance. She thinks that if'the County paid 100 percent of the premium, the person would abuse use of the insurance. Mr. Tucker said that is the reason the amount the County pays was capped in 1988-89. The County is self-insured, and most of the employees recognize that. It has not affected the County's insurance rates significantly. Mr. Bowerman said he has seen ads in the Wall Street Journal about a company which gives back to the individual employees at the end of the year any health insurance premiums which were not spent during that particular year. Mr. Tucker said the County does that now. In the past, the County has used those funds to reduce the rate. This year those funds will be used to fund the health screening. Any excess funds go back to the employee in some form. A reserve is kept in the event that in the following year there is a bad experience with health claims. That is a benefit of being self-insured. Mr. Perkins said if there were no further questions for Mr. Tucker, the Board would proceed to the next agenda item. COUNTY ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENTS. Board of Supervisors: Requested, $296,321; recommended, $288,871. Ella W. Carey, Clerk, was present. The six members of the Board of Supervisors are elected from six magisterial districts. The Board's office staff consists of the Clerk and two deputy clerks. The FY 1995-96 budget request of $296,321 reflects a 1.6 percent increase in compensation, a 2.4 percent increase in benefits and a 0.9 percent increase in operational expenses. The requested baseline budget increases by $4060 (1.4%) over the current year. Included in operational accounts is an increase in printing and binding for updates of the Code of Albemarle of $1600 (114%), and an increase in surety bonds for Board members and the Clerk of $1200 (1200%). These bonds now cover a four-year period instead of one year. The County Executive recommends that the Staff Services Department try to fund a new program request of $7400 for a chemical dry system (needed to protect Board records from fire and water damage from the County's sprinkler system) out of its current year's budget. The baseline budget of $288,871 is recommended for approval, with no expanded requests being recommended for funding. There were no questions from Board members. County Executive: Requested, $409,403; recommended, $409,403. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive, was present. The County Executive is the chief executive officer of County government and is appointed by and accountable to the Board of Supervisors. His staff consists of a deputy county executive, an executive assistant, a management analyst, an administrative secretary and a part-time office assistant. The total budget for the County Executive's Office increases by $9701 (2.4%), reflecting a 20.7 percent decrease in operating expenses and a $200 increase in capital costs. The decrease in several operating accounts is due March 13, 1995 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 3) 000145 to transferring a portion of expenses to the Community Resources Office which was relocated from the Police Department to the County Executive's Office during FY 1994-95. The Community Resources Office is a division of the County Executive's Office but has its own cost center. Baseline funding is recommended for the County Executive's Office. There are no expanded requests. There were no questions from Board members. Community Resources Office: Requested, $43,737; recommended, $43,737. The Community Resources Office is responsible for the County's Public Information and Education Program, by promoting citizen input in the process of local government, making County government more accessible and responsive to the concerns of citizens, and educating residents about the issues and policies that will determine the locality's future direction. The Community Resources Office is staffed by a community resources coordinator. The budget request of $43,737 consists of $35,122 in compensation and benefits, $5520 in operational expenses and $3095 in expanded program re- quests. The County Executive recommends funding the $40,642 baseline budget of the Community Resources Office, plus $3095 in additional funds to expand activities (the newsletter "FYI" [For Your Information] highlighting General Government activities which is distributed to the public; the number of regular articles and columns in local newspapers; special brochures; fact sheets; a monthly calendar of dates and events of interest; news releases and public service announcements). There were no questions from Board members. Human Resources: Requested, $215,249; recommended, $215,249. Juliet C. Jennings, Director, was present. The Albemarle County Department of Human Resources serves both general government and school division employees. With approximately 1700 full-time personnel, the function of the department is to manage all phases of staffing. Its total operating budget is carried in the School Fund. A transfer from the General Fund to the School Fund represents general government's share of the operation, which is based on the number of general government employees (currently 21%). In addition to this contribution to the School Fund, line items in the personnel budget include stipends and fringe benefits for general government employees that are not carried in individual department budgets, e.g., early retirement, etc. General Government's contribution to the Personnel/Human Resources budget increases by $17,324 (8.8%), which reflects a 34.5 percent increase in general government benefits (unemployment, early retirement, part-time annuities) and a 3.5 percent increase in General Government's transfer to the School Division for the operating expenses of the Department. The increased transfer includes some expenses of the Media Center because the training function which was under Human Resources has now been moved to the Media Center. One reason for the increase in the transfer is due partly to higher salaries since reorganization of the Department. No new positions were added, but the position of recruitment coordinator which was vacant all of last year, has been filled as of July 1 at the deputy director level. Also, the benefits area has been moved back under Human Resources. Prior to July 1, it had been shared with the Finance Department on the School side, etc. Bringing that back to Human Resources, has brought along with it a mid-level management position. Ms. Jennings said there are two areas in the Department which are not shared in the 21 percent cost-sharing venture. There is a Human Resources Specialist who works solely with the School side because of issuing contracts for certified personnel. That salary and benefits are under the School Division. In addition, the complete funding of Affirmative Action and the recruitment activity come from School funding. In addition to the transfer, the largest increases in expenditures are in "other personnel items" which are unique to the local government funding. The increase in General Government benefits reflects a 78.6 percent increase in unemployment insurance and a 4.3 00014G March i3, 1995 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 4) percent increase in annuity payments for part-time employees due to an increase in the number of employees receiving these payments. The County Executive has recommended baseline funding for the Department of Personnel/Human Resources. There are no expanded requests. There were no questions from Board members. County Attorney: Requested, $334,941; recommended, $243,388. Davis, County Attorney, was present. Larry W. The County Attorney's office (Legal Services) acts as the legal advisor to County government and all its departments insuring that all official actions of the County, its departments, officials, and employees, comply with State and Federal law. The office is staffed by an in-house county attorney, a deputy county attorney and a legal services assistant. The total budget for this office increases by $27,486 (12.7%), which reflects a 3.2 percent increase in compensation, a 4.4 percent decrease in benefits and a 2.8 percent increase in operations. The County Executive did not recommend funding of an assistant county attorney. This position was requested to meet increased demand for legal services such as reviewing and updating County policies, manuals and ordi- nances, and implementing a preventative liability program. Included in the cost was $2385 in additional operating expenses, $2780 for furniture and equipment and $2780 for computer equipment. Funding for the County Attorney in the amount of $243,388 was recom- mended. This includes additional funds for two expanded program requests: A full-time paralegal was requested, but the County Executive recommended funding only a part-time position at $11,835. He does recommend funding $11,450 (including $1050 in capital equipment) for two law clerks/interns working a total of 20 hours per week who would provide legal research and support for the attorneys, assist with recodification and continuing updates of the Code of Albemarle, and increase attorney availability to review and update revisions to a County policy manual. Mr. Davis said he has been County Attorney for one year, and the role of the office is changing because of the in-house nature of the office. The number of staff contacts and requests for information, and requests from boards and commissions has increased dramatically over the past year. His staff has been trying to cover this change in service as much as possible. The Board Clerk's budget carried an amount for recodification of the Code of Albemarle, but the major part of that work has to be done by the County Attorney's Office. They also have a back-log of items that need to be addressed. The Police Manuals, the Personnel Policies and Procedures, the School Policies and Procedures, the Purchasing Manual, the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances, have not been scrutinized thoroughly for a number of years. His office staff has a lack of time and resources to accomplish these tasks. Mr. Davis said he had asked for a full-time paralegal and a full-time Assistant County Attorney. In the future, as the office expands, there will be a need for additional support. He has attempted to keep all litigation in- house and he does not have the support staff to do that easily. Ms. Thomas said she favors going with the part-time paralegal and the two interns as recommended. She asked if that is something Mr. Davis is willing to try for one year. Mr. Davis said that will help his office, but there are a lot of things these positions cannot do, such as: cover meetings, provide legal advice, be responsible for any manuals that need to be updated, or for the recodification. Ms. Humphris said she thinks the office should have the full-time paralegal. Mr. Marshall asked how much this office was costing under the previous attorney. He said it looks like the Board is saving money by having an in-house attorney, but to him it is what it used to cost when a lot of the work was being "farmed out." Ms. Humphris said it appears that there is now a larger work load being handled. She thinks the Board needs to take a bigger step this year and plan to take an even bigger step next year. Ms. Thomas asked if the Board were to take a bigger step, is a full-time paralegal what Mr. Davis would prefer having. Mr. Davis said his first March 13, 1995 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 5) preference is to have an additional attorney who could take on responsibili- ties for the Social Services Department which would decrease that budget by $20,000+. Taking on that additional responsibility would decrease his advantage in having the additional attorney. However, it would be to his advantage to have the attorney and it would not cost his office $20,000 a year to represent Social Services. In lieu of that, he would prefer the full-time paralegal position. Mr. Marshall said what he really wants to know is how much money the Board is spending for outside help now. Mr. Davis said Social Services is the only area. Mr. Tucker said that is a small retainer for Jim Bowling to continue providing Social Services review. In the 1993-94 budget, there was approximately $90,000 included for transitioning from the former county attorney to the in-house county attorney position and office. Mr. Marshall asked how much more the County is getting for its money now. Mr. Tucker said when the attorney moved into the County Office Building they became much more accessible. That is where the workload has changed. Now, the County Attorney's office is on the E-Mail system so the school principals can get to his office more readily. That was not available with the former attorney who was not located in the building. Staff has been sensitive to the Board's feelings about having an in-house attorney. When the change was being discussed, it was said it would cost more money to have an in-house attorney rather than having a part-time position. His recommendation was made from a priority perspective, but if the Board wants to upgrade the paralegal to full-time, that can be funded. Ms. Humphris said she thinks it is obvious there is a growing workload in this office. The important thing is that the job get done. She thinks it is important for the Board to recognize this is a huge job this office carries out, and it probably grows daily (based on what is happening in the County and in the world in general). She does not think it will pay to "stick our heads in the sand" and not add the personnel now. If there is a need to do this now, she feels it would be better to do it now. Mr. Tucker said if the Board is interested in doing it now, he would rather for the Board to do more this year than next year because that is an off-assessment year and there will not be the revenues available. In that case, Ms. Humphris said she would ask that the Board discuss the issue of adding an Assistant County Attorney position to the office. She said it is obvious to her that the office needs that position. It is the Board's obligation to recognize the needs and see if it the position can be funded. Mr. Martin said if $20,000 were transferred from the Social Services budget, then only an additional $20,000 is needed to fund this position. Mr. Bowerman said he has noticed in the past year that there is a more proactive stance on the part of the Board's legal advisors. He said this office has tried to make sure the County does business correctly. The fact that the Board has information and legal opinions which often anticipate requirements is helpful to him. If this office is still understaffed to do all the work that needs to be done, he can support what Ms. Thomas and Ms. Humphris have suggested. He thinks the payback to the County and the taxpay- ers has the potential of exceeding the cost. Ms. Thomas asked that the Board discuss exactly what is being suggested. If the Board approves an Assistant County Attorney, this will add about a $20,000 expense. If the Board just approves the attorney and not a part-time paralegal or any clerks, does this put the office in a bad situation. Mr. Davis said if an attorney is added, the office needs at a minimum a part-time paralegal/clerical position to provide staff coverage during lunch hours, vacations, etc. Mr. Tucker suggested adding the cost of an attorney to the list of unfunded priorities to be discussed at the last work session. He said the part-time paralegal is already in the funding for this office. He asked if the Board members wanted to drop funding for the interns. Ms. Thomas said she thinks the Board wants to do what is the most useful. Mr. Tucker said he would add it to the list and arrive at the correct figure later. Mr. Bowerman said he does not believe this is a surprise to the Board. When it was decided to have an in-house attorney and staff, and upgrade the level of services provided to not only the Board, but to County citizens, this March 13, 1995 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 6) 000:t.48 was expected. Mr. Marshall said he looked at the move as saving money in different areas, lawsuits, etc. There were no further questions from Board members. Department of Finance: Requested $2,134,645; recommended, $2,102,411. Melvin A. Breeden, Director of Finance, was not able to be present because of a death in his family. Richard Huff presented this request. The Department of Finance is responsible for the assessment and collec- tion, management and disbursement of public funds. It is also responsible for capital financing and debt management, financial accounting and reporting, payroll, risk management and insurance, real estate assessments and tax collection. The responsibilities of the department are broken down into five divisions: Administration; Accounting and Payroll; Assessment and Collec- tions; Real Estate; and, Purchasing. The total baseline budget of the Department of Finance increases by $149,412 (7.7%) over FY 1994-95, which reflects a 2.5 percent increase in salaries, a 1.9 percent increase in benefits, a 1.8 percent decrease in operations, and a 27.1 percent increase in capital equipment costs. The increase in compensation costs reflects, in part, several reclassifications of personnel which took place in FY 1994-95, and the reorganization that resulted in elimination of the Purchasing Agent's position. The realignment between divisions to work out that is also reflected in these costs. Two major decreases in operations of the department are a $3000 (60%) decrease in legal services and a $4500 (25.4%) decrease in copy supplies, both of which were over budgeted in the current year. The County Executive recommends funding of $2,102,411, which includes additional funds for the following expanded program requests reflecting the impact of the split billing of real property taxes in FY 1995-96: one real estate clerk II ($23,230), two tax clerk II ($69,018), and the purchase of a lock box at a local bank ($20,000) which is a service where the bank opens the mail, makes the deposit from that mail and sends a listing of what was in that mail. It gets the money in the bank faster so the money begins to earn interest faster. It is also intended to hold down the additional workload anticipated by doubling everything as a result of collecting real property taxes twice a year. State revenues for the Department decline considerably in FY 1995-96, so the local share increase reflects the impact of a projected loss in State Compensation Board revenues. This reduction reflects 82 percent of total revenues previously received from the State to support this office. Ms. Thomas said it appears that almost $60,000 has been saved in this budget. She said it is in salaries so she assumed it had to do with the shifting of personnel. Mr. Huff said not filling the purchasing agent's position in the current year accounted for a savings. The Department is not up to full strength yet to handle that change. Mr. Marshall said the Board had discussed upgrading the computer system in the Finance Department, and he does not see funds to cover that upgrade. He thinks this is a critical area to the County in collections and additional revenues. Mr. Huff said there are two major projects to bring into the computer system in Finance this coming year. One of those is the split billing of the real property tax. Although it sounds easy to do twice in a year what is normally done one time in a year, the logistics of making that happen are significant. The second item is the Computerized Mass Appraisal System for the Real Estate Division. It is possible that a contract on that item will be signed this week for a two-year project to get it in-house and build the data bases necessary for that work. This is being done in the event the County wants to do annual appraisals. Nothing was budgeted for a third major project this year. Mr. Marshall said he is always concerned about the reassessment. He thinks the County will reach a point, as they have in Northern Virginia, where there will actually be a devaluation. The County will have to be ready for that, so the Board will need to build some reserve funds into the budget. He does not think the County can continue to count on the assessments going up. He believes this new computer program will show that fact. Mr. Tucker said March 13, 1995 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 7) 000149 some of that was shown in the last reassessment. He believes the assessment values will flatten out. Mr. Huff said that throughout the whole budget, with one or two excep- tions, but especially in the Finance Department, there are no computerization requests included for departmental computers. There are some items in the Information Services budget that are county-wide. The computer maintenance account has been level funded, and computer maintenance is being self-funded. Any savings at the end of the year will be used as capital to purchase equipment in the following year. This year the money was given to the Finance Department, and they are getting about $22,000 of computerization to do some things with connection to the State computer system. That does not show in the operations budget. There were no other questions from Board members. Information Services: Requested $1,394,639; recommended, $1,289,639. Fred Kruger, Director, was present. The Information Services Department provides computer services for all County employees, including the Department of Education, and all constitu- tional officers. Online systems are in place for payroll, personnel, finance, personal property and real estate tax billing, budget preparation, school media inventory, jury selection, business licenses, dog licenses and the Virginia Public Assistance program. Additionally, Information Services provides all computerized services to the School Division, including the maintenance of the network between school administrative offices, the 23 schools, and school building services and transportation. A budget increase of $179,201 (16.1%) for Information Services reflects a 6.9 percent increase in compensation, a 6.9 percent increase in benefits, a 2.9 percent increase in operating expenses, level funding in the replacement of capital items, and $120,551 for expanded programs. The increase in compensation and benefit accounts reflect some reclassifications of personnel plus the addition of a support analyst in FY 1994-95. The $152,060 in capital outlay and debt service will be used to purchase bridges/routers to attach remote locations to the County Office Building (COB) ($60,000); microcomputer hardware for the COB network and in-house training facility ($15,000); new and upgraded software for the COB LAN ($10,000); mainframe software ($5,000); a multi platform development software system for the development of LAN and mainframe applications ($20,000); and $42,060 for the third and final payment toward the Mainframe Disk Subsystem purchased in FY 1992-93. The County Executive recommends funding of $1,169,088 for the baseline budget, plus an additional $45,000 to upgrade mainframe and COB LAN hardware, $38,000 to finance the General Government's share of a Wide Area Network (WAN) connecting the COB and the County's 23 Schools, and $37,551 to provide an additional support analyst for local government. The County Executive also recommends that Information Services try to fund the balance ($85,000) of its original $130,000 expanded request for mainframe and LAN hardware upgrades with funds from the Capital Improvement budget. One major request not funded in the County Executive's recommendation is $20,000 to upgrade COB LAN Software which would have upgraded current software licenses and added new software products and new versions of current software to the COB LAN. Mr. Kruger said he would like to explain the benefit of the WAN. They are attempting the replace the current dependency on a dial-up environment to the computers in the COB with a direct connection through fiber. This will have all the school facilities, administrative and other school facilities, as well as the Courthouse and other County facilities, interconnected for a more efficient environment for direct connection to E-Mail, for direct data transfer such as purchase requisitions, personnel data, leave data, payroll data, etc., as well as Internet connectivity for the instructional side. It also offers the opportunity to connect to other government agencies for research for general government and the administrative side of the schools. He feels there are other applications which have not yet been discovered. What is being done now is very limited in its capacity. Ms. Thomas mentioned an item in the Capital Improvements Program (CIP) for mainframe and software upgrades, etc. Mr. Kruger said the 1995-96 CIP March 13, 1995 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 8) 0001.50 request contains two things they would like to do in the next year. One of those has to do with imaging. In the future, it is hoped to put paper into electronic storage media so that people can retrieve things quicker, and so the record will take up less space. There is a request in the CIP for $50,000 for that project. Also, they want to reduce the need for a large UPS system for backup power. As the County gets to newer technology, the demand on power is reduced as all electronic things are getting smaller and taking less resources to run. Mr. Marshall asked if there is a battery backup now. Mr. Kruger said not on the mainframe. Knowing that a couple of major mainframe pieces of equipment are to be replaced with more efficient equipment, he delayed purchase of it. The LAN has a backup, but the mainframe equipment does not. Mr. Huff said staff could not justify spending $40,000+ for the mainframe when moving to the network environment. Mr. Kruger said all of the data in the mainframe is backed up once each day, and there are redundant sets off site in case of a disaster. Similar procedures apply to the LAN. The backup is of major importance. Ms. Thomas said the priority request is for upgrading software licenses and licenses on the LAN rather than the backup which is part of the CIP. To return to the operating budget in front of the Board, she wonders how impor- tant that is. She just came from a conference where she was amazed by the advances in computers. Many things were demonstrated, one being that all purchasing decisions, etc. were done by computer. She does not want the County to get too far behind in technology. If the Board does not approve upgrading of the software, will the County be losing out? Mr. Tucker said Ms. Thomas is referring to the LAN software which was not recommended for funding. Mr. Kruger said the $20,000 that was not funded is a different kind of request. It has to do with the number of current licenses that would be provided on the LAN, or potentially the WAN, and that is something that will have to be balanced with the total operating budget. Some of it must be done. As to the remarks about things like purchasing, when the WAN is in place, those things can be put out to the schools and other departments not in the COB. Expanding the user base provides a better value for the dollar spent. That is a major reason for the WAN. There were no further questions from Board members. Registrar (Board of Elections): Requested, $136,913; recommended, $127,884. Jackie Harris, Assistant Registrar, was present. The Registrar is responsible for registering eligible citizens to vote in Albemarle County, bordering counties and the City of Charlottesville. The office maintains all voting records, handles all petitions, candidate and absentee ballots, and supervises all aspects of all elections. The Office is staffed by the registrar, an assistant registrar and a part-time office assistant. The County also pays the three-member Board of Elections. The Registrar's FY 1995-96 budget decreases $821 (0.6%), which reflects an 18.5 percent decrease in salaries, a 14.7 percent decrease in benefits, and a 78.7 percent increase in operational accounts. The $16,942 decrease in compensation costs and the $18,195 increase in operational expenses reflect the reclassification of payment for 200 election officials as an operational expense instead of a salary account. The Board of Elections agreed to absorb a request for a $650 plain paper fax machine into its FY 1994-95 budget. The County Executive recommends baseline funding for the Board of Elections. Not included are funds for: Part-time Office Assistant II who would serve as the absentee ballot clerk for the November, 1995 elections and then continue as the additional staff needed to handle the workload increase associated with implementing the NVRA ($5,215); salary supplement for the Registrar which would increase the registrar's salary by ten percent as is allowed by the Code of Virginia ($3,164). Ms. Harris said the increase in operating costs reflects the higher printing, binding, advertising, postage and copy costs associated with implementing the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) which is to be effective in total by January 1, 1996. It appears that the mail registration portion of that Act will become effective July 1, 1995. It is anticipated that will be a permanent part of activities in the Registrar's office. A March 13, 1995 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 9) 000:i.5 . part-time person was requested to help implement that program. They antici- pate a 50 percent increase in registration activities such as: changes of address, deletions, etc. The increase in actual net registrations would be difficult to pinpoint. They are also anticipating an increase in the amount of handling they do on a registration. Much of it will be done by untrained personnel. The mail registration portion means that any person interested can take forms out into the community and help people fill out the forms needed to register to vote. Those persons will not be trained to get correct, complete information from'the registrant. Also, as to agency registrations, they will need to train personnel in Social Services, disability offices, Armed Services recruitment offices and the Employment Commission. Every person coming in for services to these agencies will have to either register to vote, or actively decline the opportunity. That was the reason for the request for a part-time office assistant. Ms. Thomas asked if this workload will be temporary. Ms. Harris said it is expected to continue. They do anticipate a few implementation costs in bringing it on line, but it will be a permanent increase. Ms. Thomas said that at one time she was a lay person helping to register people. They had very careful training, but still made mistakes. Jim Heilman was a leader around the State in training volunteers to go out and register people. Actually, the volunteers caused him many problems. She is wondering what it will be like when totally untrained people can go door-to- door and give people registration forms to be mailed in. It will be a major change in the type of work the office has to do. This office is known statewide as the office that has done more outreach and got more voters according to population than any other office she knows of. Ms. Harris said they do have the lowest staffing currently of any locality in their population bracket. They feel the requested increase is justified. Mr. Bowerman asked if the Board funded this part-time person, would that be the same person already employed. Mr. Harris said uno." It would be another half-time person. Mr. Martin said he thinks that with the NVRA it will add a tremendous increase in time and effort. It would just make good sense to add that part- time office assistant expecting that it might have to be increased to full- time the following year. He suggested that this item be added to the unfunded priority list for discussion later in these work sessions. The other Board members concurred. There were no further questions from Board members. COUNTY JUDICIAL DEPARTMENTS: Commonwealth's Attorney: Requested, $347,660; recommended, $347,660. James L. Camblos, III, Commonwealth's Attorney, was present. The Commonwealth's Attorney, elected by County voters every four years, is the chief prosecuting officer for Albemarle County. Assisted by three deputy commonwealth attorneys, a secretary and an administrative assistant, the office interprets and enforces State laws, advises the police, public officials and the public regarding criminal matters, prosecutes all felony cases and presents indictments to grand juries. Salaries for the office are set by, and reimbursed by, the State Compensation Board. The County is responsible for part of the benefits and most of the operating expenses of this office. The Commonwealth Attorney's budget increases by $43,847 (14.4%) reflect- ing a 15.6 percent increase in salaries, a 2.3 percent decrease in fringe benefits, and a 2.4 percent decrease in operational costs. The increase in salary accounts reflects the impact of a 2.25 percent salary increase for constitutional officers authorized by the State to begin on December 1, 1995, and a $7000 salary supplement for an Attorney I in the current year. The County also agreed to purchase a replacement copier for the office out of the County's copier fund, reimbursable by this department through a $0.03 charge for copies which is budgeted in a line item entitled "copy supplies." Funding is recommended at $347,660, which includes $8500 in additional funds for a part-time receptionist to provide assistance with answering telephones and making copies for eight hours a day on the three days per week March 13, 1995 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 10) 000 52 with the heaviest workload (the workload has increased as crime and arrests have increased). Mr. Camblos said the most important request in his budget is that for the part-time receptionist. He has two very competent people in his office who had a large amount of overtime the past couple of years because of the caseload and their inability to get away for lunch. They have had to take work home. The part-time position is contemplated to work three days a week as a receptionist and to do light typing and filing. There are some days in his office when the staff does nothing but answer the telephones because of the volume of calls. This additional person would help with morale and the stresses that go with the job. He asked for favorable consideration of the request. Mr. Camblos said part of the amount shown for salary increases was due to the salary adjustments from Richmond because the public defender's offices were making more money than the commonwealth attorney's offices. The State did an adjustment as of January 1 so that the public defender and the common- wealth attorney, plus personnel all the way down the line, make comparable salaries based on the job being done. Mr. Bowerman asked if the Board funded the $8500, if there would be a savings on overtime pay. Mr. Camblos said ~yes." Mr. Bowerman asked how much it will save. Mr. Camblos said the County just paid more than $6000 to the two people in his office now. Mr. Bowerman asked if the State or the County is responsible for that overtime pay. Mr. Tucker said the County is responsi- ble for that payment. Mr. Bowerman said he thinks this item should be added to the Unfunded Priority List for discussion later in the work sessions. Mr. Tucker said the funding is already in the budget. There were no further questions from Board members. (Note: At 2:25 p.m., the Board recessed, and reconvened at 2:35 p.m.) PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENTS: Police Department: Requested, $5,278,915; recommended, $4,824,272. John F. Miller, Chief of Police, was present. The Albemarle County Police Department has the primary responsibility for law enforcement in the County. The responsibilities of the department are broken down into seven major divisions: administrative services, community services, patrol services, investigations, youth services, animal control and special operations. In prior years, the department was divided into five divisions which did not adequately reflect the actual programs operated in the department. The Police Department's total budget of $4,824,272 increases by $206,093 (4.5%) over the FY 1994-95 appropriation, reflecting a 1.5 percent increase in salary costs, a 2.1 percent increase in benefits, a 2.1 percent increase in operations and a 0.6 percent decrease in replacement capital costs. The increase in salary costs is due to the police performance plan and reorganiza- tion in the current year. The most significant changes in operational costs are a 32 percent increase in health examinations, reflecting the impact of biennial physical examinations for officers under 40 years of age which will occur again in FY 1995-96; a 74 percent increase in external telecommunica- tions, reflecting the impact of current year reappropriations for additional pagers and cellular phones; a 345 percent increase in travel expenses for additional traffic and accident training; and, a 51 percent decrease in vehicle and equipment supplies. The reduction in State revenues and the increase in local revenues reflects the impact of a projected net loss in FY 1995-96 of approximately $44,000 in Police 599 Funds from the State. Major department reauests not funded in the County Executive's recommen- dation: Part-time to Full-time Secretary, Administration $11,341 Uniforms for Police Record Clerks, Administration $3,500 Five Police Patrol Officers $240,743 General Investigator, Investigations $56,118 Part-time to Full-time Property Clerk, Special Operations Two Traffic Officers, Special Operations $82,424. $8,863 March 13, 1995 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 11) ooo sa The County Executive recommends funding a budget of $4,824,272 which includes funding for the following expanded programs: $20,000 for a compensa- tory time fund in order to pay those employees who could not use their compensatory time within the current year; $5,000 to equip and operate a bicycle patrol; $6,000 in a contribution to a joint narcotics fund for use by the Joint Narcotics Units; $103,794 to fund three additional patrol officers for the COPS Program. Chief Miller said a critical issue for the Police Department is the staffing level. They have been trying to reach 1.5 officers for each 1000 in population. The current level is 1.13 per 1000. Staffing affects their mission and goes to the heart of the beat/sector system where they are trying to staff one sergeant and eight officers for both the daylight shift and the evening shift, and a minimum of one sergeant and six officers for the midnight shift. Because of staff shortages and vacancies, the Department has been running one sergeant and seven officers for daylight and evening, and as few as one sergeant and four officers for the midnight shift. Chief Miller said the recommended expanded funding in this budget is for three additional police officers at $103,000+. That amount represents a 25 percent match under the Crime Bill should the bill remain intact. If the Crime Bill does change and officers cannot be obtained through the grant system, then this money would be used to hire two police officers. Chief Miller said another expanded program is a $6000 contribution to the Narcotics Fund. Over the last year, the amount of money being captured through seizures has begun to dwindle. It is harder to get access to the money, and the Federal government is backing down on seizing property. He said the three agencies (City, County, University) have agreed to put $6000 into a pool to operate the three units. The County's contribution to this fund was supposed to be $18,000 because there are three officers assigned to narcotics, but they are requesting that only one be funded. Chief Miller said that $20,000 is requested to pay for compensatory time. Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Department must pay the compensatory time that is earned by employees in the year in which it is earned. It is estimated that there will be a $34,000 pay-out in August. The County Executive is recommending that $14,000 of that amount be paid out of the Department's current budget. Mr. Martin asked about the contribution to the joint Narcotics Unit. Chief Miller said it was agreed that to run the unit an amount of $6000 would be needed for each officer assigned to that unit. Currently, the County has three officers assigned. The recommendation is to fund one at $6000 with an unfunded priority of the other $12,000. Mr. Tucker said staff does not yet know what amount the other agencies will fund. Ms. Thomas asked how the County's contribution compares to what the others agencies fund. Chief Miller said the University has three officers, but the city has six officers assigned to this unit. Ms. Humphris said she has no idea how to prioritize the major department requests which were not recommended for funding. Chief Miller said his first priority would be personnel to try to get to the 1.5 officers per 1000 population. His second priority would be for overtime funds for traffic enforcement and other areas where flexibility is needed when problems arise. Mr. Martin if the COPS programs falls through, this budget as recom- mended by the County Executive will cover only two additional officers for the coming year. Chief Miller said that is correct. Mr. Martin asked how many additional officers were funded last year. Chief Miller said it was two. Mr. Martin asked about the year before that. Mr. Tucker said it was five. Ms. Thomas said it is clear that the County is falling behind on staffing. Chief Miller said as the population increases, that is true. Ms. Thomas said an easy way to add a small amount of money to have an effect, is to add to overtime funds. Chief Miller said contractual overtime is about $75,000, with regular overtime (courts, call backs, shift extensions, etc.) being about $138,000. The $75,000 for contractual overtime is money that is returned to the County from the people for which the work is performed. March 13, 1995 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 12) 000 54 Mr. Martin mentioned the three additional patrol officers at $103,794 and on the other side there are five patrol officers at $240,000. He asked the difference between these officers. Chief Miller said the officers coming through the grant would not come with capital outlay funds. Mr. Huff said the way they are listed in the budget, these people would be hired in January instead of July, thus making it only a six-month salary and all the capital costs. At 70,000 population, it would take 22 officers to get to the 1.5 officers per 1000. Chief Miller said he is not prepared to say the County needs that many officers, but there is a need to get on some schedule to hire officers to address short staffing. Ms. Humphris said she thinks some funds should be added to this budget, but is at a loss to know what to recommend. Mr. Martin said he thinks the Board should add the additional $12,000 for the joint Narcotics Fund. He would take the $6000 out of the baseline budget, and then put the entire $18,000 on the Unfunded Priority List until it is known what the City and University will do. Mr. Martin said he wants to be sure the County gets the three additional patrol officers, however they are funded. Mr. Tucker suggested funding one additional officer, and if the COPS money is not received, that adds the third officer, but if it does come through, that adds a fourth officer. There was consensus to add the one officer for the full year. Mr. Bowerman asked if Chief Miller feels it is realistic to fill the empty positions, plus add new officers and get them all trained, etc. Chief Miller said he would recommend that they be hired for six months. The Department has five vacancies to fill at this time. There was no further discussion of this budget item. Emergency Operations Center (EOC): Requested, $449,686; recommended, $449,686. Wayne S. Campagna, Director, was present. The Emergency Operations Center (EOC) (911) created by Albemarle County, the City of Charlottesville and the University of Virginia in 1984 provides emergency communications for the region. The Center receives all 911 calls in the area and serves as a central dispatch for the three local police depart- ments. In FY 1995-96 the E-911 building locator system will become opera- tional. The County, City and University share the costs of the Emergency Operations Center based on the number of service calls, population and crime rate in the prior year. The FY 1995-96 allocation of nonmedical dispatching costs are $445,466 (48.88%) to Charlottesville, $338,474 (37.14%) to Albemarle County and $127,407 (13.98%) to the University. The costs of emergency medical dispatching are shared with the City. The University does not pay for any of the medical dispatching. The County's share of medical dispatching is $111,212 or 55 percent to the City's $90,991 or 45 percent. Albemarle's overall percentage share of the EOC's budget is 39.97 percent based on the share contributions listed above, which requires a total contribution of $449,686, an increase of $24,556 (5.8%) over FY 1994-95. The County Executive recommends baseline funding for the Emergency Operations Center at $449,686. There were no questions from Board members. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENTS: Inspections: Requested, $638,772; recommended, $614,551. Jesse R. Hurt, Director, was present. The Inspections Department is responsible for ensuring public health, safety and welfare in so far as they are affected by the design, construction and use of buildings. The department reviews all plans for compliance with the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code. Since January of 1993, the Inspections Department has not been responsible for the enforcement of the Basic Fire Prevention Code. March 13, 1995 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 13) 0001.55 The FY 1995-96 baseline budget request of the Inspections Department is $614,551, reflecting a one percent increase over FY 1994-95. This increase reflects a 2.7 percent increase in salaries, a 2.2 percent increase in benefits, a 4.1 percent increase in operating costs and a net 31.9 percent decrease in capital outlay. There are no significant increases in operating expenditures. The $19,929 request for replacement capital equipment repre- sents a $2400 request for a replacement sofa, chair and partition for the Department lobby area and a $17,529 request for a replacement pickup truck. The County Executive recommends baseline funding for the Inspections Department in the amount of $614,551, which reflects a small adjustment for a projected increase in the cost of replacement motor vehicles in FY 1995-96. No expanded requests are funded in the County Executive's recommendation. Major department request not funded in the County Executive's recommen- dation: Inspections Documentationalist - funding for a full-time person who would also serve as a receptionist now that renovations to the Inspections Central Intake Office have been completed. This person is needed to meet the additional work load created by an increase in requests for permits. The cost of this position includes $2,500 for a computer - $25,750. Mr. Hurt said his department was renovated in order to establish a central intake office. The office furniture is for that new space. That is the only increase requested. Ms. Thomas asked what type of increase there has been in the workload of the Department. Mr. Hurt said there has been a significant increase, and particularly during the past three months. He had requested a new position for the front office so that person would act as receptionist. Ms. Humphris asked about that request and if the request is urgent. Mr. Hurt said that often people have to stand and wait to apply for permits. He has been trying to streamline the process. There are three people taking permit applications, and quite often the office manager is assisting in this work. One of those people has to serve as receptionist for the office, while answering the telephone and occasionally typing letters. Mr. Marshall said he had to wait thirty minutes to get a permit. Mr. Tucker said the office has peak hours for service. Mr. Hurt said that often it is busy all day. Telephone calls have to be put on hold because they just can't be answered fast enough. Ms. Humphris asked if people complain. Mr. Hurt said "yes." Ms. Humphris said the Board has often talked about stream- lining the process and giving good service to the citizens. If this is a genuine bottleneck, she thinks the Board should do something about it. Ms. Thomas said she knows that in general many department are working to streamline and make things more efficient without adding more employees. She asked if this department has worked at doing that. Mr. Huff said the County Executive's recommendation did not include this position because staff felt the renovations needed to be finished first. Staff feels that some of the structural changes will improve the flow through that office. There has been no opportunity to see the effect of that and its impact on Department staff. They did a trend of the number of permits over the last four years. They have worked hard trying to streamline this process and hope to free up time for those four people to do other tasks. It does take one person out of the service mode to operate the front desk. The question is whether the other three people can handle the service needs, and that has not been answered yet. Ms. Humphris said staff may have the answer to that question in three months, but if there are no funds in the budget, these funds would not get into the budget for a year. Mr. Tucker suggested that the Board set aside some funds in its reserve until the analysis is completed. Ms. Humphris agreed. She suggested the funds be included on the Unfunded Priority List. Mr. Perkins asked if there are people in the building who might be able to help out during a busy time and then go to another department to help there during similar circumstances. He said that is what corporations do. When things get busy, they don't hire people, but start to work overtime. That is cheaper in the short run. Mr. Marshall asked if it is possible that developers who have multiple permit requests could fax the requests to the office in advance and the County bill them on a monthly basis, or something similar. Mr. Hurt said the office March 13, 1995 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 14) 000 56 has established a line of credit for some people by having them pay an amount in advance, and then receive their permit by telephone. Ms. Thomas praised the department for streamlining and trying to give the customer quicker service, but she does not want to add another employee if that is not the right solution. Mr. Hurt said the office had another em- ployee, but that position was lost to fire prevention when the Fire/Rescue Division was formed. Mr. Bowerman suggested putting one-half of the requested amount on the Unfunded Priority List. If in a few months staff determines it is needed, they can find the additional funds somewhere to fund the position. There were no further questions from Board members. Engineering: Requested, $839,066; recommended, $808,056. Jo M. Higgins, Director, was present. The Engineering Department reviews the design and construction of new residential and commercial construction in the County in addition to providing designs for various County projects such as drainage, stormwater detention basins, park facilities, roads and walkways. The Department administers the Runoff Control Ordinance, the Stormwater Detention Ordinance, the Erosion Control Ordinance and assists citizens with obtaining new street lighting and street signs. This office also handles capital projects in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and E-911 sign maintenance for the County. The Engineering Department is staffed by a director of engineering, a chief engineer, an engineering assistant, an administrative secretary, an office assistant, four civil engineers, five engineering inspectors (one of whom is assigned to sign maintenance), a capital projects coordinator and an erosion control enforcement officer. Although all programs are managed by Engineering, the Sign Maintenance Program, Water Resources Management and the Solid Waste budgets are shown separately. The Engineering budget increases by $141,640 (21.3%) reflecting a 12.4 percent increase in compensation, a 12.4 percent increase in fringe benefits, a 16 percent increase in operations and a net decrease of $9800 in capital purchases. The increase in salary and compensation costs reflects the addition of an administrative secretary as part of the reorganization between the Zoning and Engineering Departments in FY 1994-95 and vacancies being filled by other County senior employees. The most significant change in the combined operating budgets of Engineering is a net increase of $8391 in electrical service costs due to the combined effect of adding $11,500 in electrical service costs of CIP Street Light Projects to the Engineering baseline budget and a projected five percent decrease in electrical rates in FY 1995-96. The Engineering Department also requests only $900 in replacement capital equipment for chairs and a printer stand and agreed to fund an additional expanded request of $2150 for a level and other ancillary equipment out of its FY 1994-95 baseline budget. The County Executive recommends funding the Engineering Department's budget of $808,056, which includes funding for several expanded program requests including $45,740 to upgrade a temporary full-time civil engineer II position to a permanent full-time position for the purpose of reducing plan review time and in order to facilitate responsiveness to the development community; and, an additional $21,360 for a project manager/inspector (hired in January) to oversee the County's capital improvement projects. These projects include over $35.0 million in major school construction projects, $6.0 million in ongoing projects, several joint County/City projects such as the new E-911 Center and the $16.0 million Joint Security Complex (Jail) expansion. Major department rec,~est not funded in the County Executive's recommen- dation is: Household Water Quality Testing Program - This request will fund the Virginia Cooperative Extension Household Water Quality Program which the Board of Supervisors requested after reviewing the pilot groundwater protection study presented in November, 1994 - $10,500. March 13, 1995 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 15) 000:1.57 Ms. Higgins said she would like to mention a couple of areas. There are several street light projects which were initiated by the Planning Department for sections between existing street lights where objections were received as to their placement. The Street Lighting Policy states that if an objection is received, the lights will not be placed. The Policy is not workable as applied to these types of projects. The Policy will need to be rewritten and brought to this Board for approval. That is a possible savings in this budget of between $10,000 for the year, or $5000 for six months. Ms. Miggins said there is $10,500 on the Unfunded Priority List for the expanded well water testing program. After the Groundwater Protection Study which was updated in 1993, there was a pilot groundwater study. In the report that came to the Board on November 2, 1994, the Board asked staff to 10ok into how to carry the pilot program to other regions in the County. This program would be through the VPI-SU Extension Service. If an individual had the test and paid for it on his own, the cost is about $170. Staff has tried to get the cost of the program down to about $15. If the County does not have the money to put into the program, the Extension Service will not do the program this Summer. There are 500 homeowners around the County who could partici- pate, divided into 100 per region. Staff felt it was an initiative the Board wanted to pursue. Ms. Miggins said in previous years the Board had funded $5000 to reimburse people who cleaned up illegal dump sites. The Task Force on Illegal Dumping will have a recommendation coming to the Board soon. The general feeling is that an effort has to be made to clean up illegal dumping, and some of it involves having equipment to lift objects or to be able to access steep slopes where items have been dumped. She had requested $20,000 for that, and it is recommended to be funded at $10,000. Ms. Miggins said she had requested that a temporary engineer position be changed to a permanent position. Quite often the Board asks for review of certain items when approving requests on the agenda. The department is also involved in stormwater drainage complaints which take a lot of investigation. Engineering gets assigned to a lot of special projects, such as: industrial access road fund projects, pump and haul permits, etc. Staff does not feel it can meet the expectations of the turnaround on development review without keeping the position that they have had since last September. Ms. Higgins said the last thing she will mention is the Capital Projects staff. At this time, there is an RFP out for six elementary school projects, and the three high school projects. Over the next 14 months, these projects will be in design. Beginning by mid-1996, they will be taking on significant capital projects over the next four or five years. This person is critical to overseeing this work. Ms. Thomas asked if one project manager/inspector is adequate. This is an area where the County can lose money if it is not good at managing the big capital projects. She asked if this one person will be handling all of the capital projects. Ms. Miggins said there are actually three people already. This is an additional person. They do education projects, and also share in the jointly-funded projects, for instance: the Health Department and the Joint Security Complex, if that project is funded. Between the City and the County they trade the lead, but there also has to be someone involved all the time. If a problem occurs, the solution can then be brought to the Board for discussion. One of the inspectors is working on Berkmar Drive at this time. The inspectors have become certified in road inspection also. When there are projects going on during the school year and students are in the building, it increases their effort to keep things running smoothly. Ms. Higgins said they can use the funds provided and see if the funds are will be adequate. Mr. Perkins asked about Berkmar Drive which will be turned over to the State for maintenance. Me asked if VDOT has inspectors there also. Ms. Miggins said the road is a revenue-sharing project, and is being built to the County's Subdivision road standards. The County is just like any developer, and VDOT will accept the road into the State system upon completion. Mr. Perkins said he wondered if there were any duplication of efforts. Ms. Miggins said VDOT will not be involved until the road is completed. Ms. Thomas said she feels the water testing program needs to be in- cluded. The pilot study took place in her district, and she was impressed at the number of households that had problems with their water supply who did not March 13, 1995 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 16) 000 .55 know there was a problem. The program will not happen unless the Board puts in its share of the money. Ms. Higgins said making it feasible to get the participation rate is an issue. To have public meetings and have people bring in water samples will take a level of effort that these dollars will not pay for. That would be done by the Extension Service and other County staff members. If no importance is placed on the problem by this Board, the Extension Office does not want to make the effort to make it happen. Staff put together this program because of what this Board requested last Fall. Mr. Tucker asked if this program is part of the function of the Water Resource Manager. Ms. Higgins said the funds are to go directly to education and to pay for subsidizing the samples in order to get the cost down to $15. Ms. Thomas said with the new regulations it is more important that people know what the quality of their well water is. Also, she sees a greater push for people to use wells as there are more and more questions about the quantity of public water supplies. She asked to put it on the Unfunded Priority List for discussion later in these work sessions. Ms. Humphris agreed. Ms. Higgins said with the deferral on the Street Light Program, those funds might be used for this program and there would be a zero net effect on the Department's total budget. Mr. Tucker said staff would work with Ms. Higgins to arrive at an appropriate amount to be considered later. There were no further questions from Board members. Water Resources Management: Requested, $49,504; recommended, $49,504. Jo Higgins, Director of Engineering, was present. The Water Resources Management Official, a position which was created in 1980 by the City of Charlottesville and the County of Albemarle, and which is funded through the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA), is responsible for coordinating all local ordinances related to soil erosion, sedimentation runoff and stormwater detention. In addition, the water resources management official reviews all land use development plans to insure that present and future development activities will not adversely affect the community's water supply. The office is staffed by a full-time water resources manager. The division's baseline budget increases by $1,879 (3.9%) which reflects a 2.5 percent increase in salaries, a 9.1 percent increase in benefits and a 4.4 percent increase in operating costs. No major increases or decreases are reflected in this budget. The County Executive recommends funding at the baseline level of $49,504. There are no expanded requests. Ms. Humphris said she had a question about the statement "the water resources management official reviews all land use development plans to insure that present and future development activities will not adversely affect the community's water supply." Ms. Higgins said the County has a Water Resources Protection Areas Ordinance. If development intrudes into a WRPA setback, David Hirschman reviews the plan since the ordinance allows imposition of a BMP mitigation plan. Anything in Runoff Control is reviewed by him also. There is a grant and there are two interns who are looking at all runoff control facilities that have been built over the years. These facilities have not been tracked to see if they work, or are even still in place. Ms. Humphris asked why the sentence does not say "... to insure that the community's water supply will not be adversely affected by present and future development activities .... " Ms. Higgins said she believes the sentence could have constructed differently. There were no further questions from Board members. Staff Services: Requested, $913,056; recommended, $913,056. A1 Waugaman, Director, was present. The Department of Staff Services is responsible for the efficient operation, safety and maintenance of seven County government buildings and the supervision of minor construction and/or remodeling of County structures. Staff Services also supervises the day-to-day operations of the copy center, mail room, stockroom and the pool car fleet. This department is divided into four divisions: the administrative division oversees operations; the mainte- March 13, 1995 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 17) 000 .59 nance division repairs the buildings; the custodial division cleans the office buildings; and, the copy center handles large internal printing jobs. The budget of the Staff Services Department has increased by $19,704 (2.2%) reflecting a 2.5 percent increase in salaries, a 0.7 percent increase in benefits, a 0.2 percent decrease in operating costs and a $12,060 increase in capital outlay. Significant changes in the budget include a combined $12,500 decrease in repair and maintenance costs due to a decrease in expected building repairs and the coverage under warranty of contracted building work, an $8000 increase in electrical service costs and a $2400 increase in heating services due to a proposed rate increase of five to six percent. A replace- ment motor vehicle at $12,060 is requested for the motor pool fleet. The County Executive recommends funding at the baseline level of $913,056. There are no expanded requests. Mr. Waugaman said the requested vehicle is to replace a vehicle which has over 137,000 miles and which was a second-hand vehicle when it was added to the fleet. He offered to answer questions. There were no questions from Board members. PARKS AND RECREATION/HUVLAN SERVICE DEPARTMENTS: Social Services: Requested, $4,104,699; recommended, $3,580,026. Karen Morris, Director, present. The Social Services Department is a locally-administered, State-super- vised system which endeavors to promote the well-being of County residents through programs that help families become self-sufficient, as well as provide assistance to individuals and families. An administrative board, consisting of six members appointed by the Board of Supervisors, sets policy and oversees the operations of the Department. The Department administers ten benefit programs which provide direct or indirect cash assistance or income supplemen- tation. They include: Medicaid, food stamps, aid to dependent children, fuel assistance, auxiliary grants to adult homes, ADCU, emergency assistance, State/local hospitalization, general relief and refugee assistance. The Department also provides eight broad categories of direct services: adult protective services, adult services, child protective services, employ- ment services, family services, foster care, adoption and day care. Services are also purchased in foster care placement and companion care. The total budget of the Department of Social Services increases by $281,583 (8.5%), which reflects a 1.6 percent increase in compensation, a four percent increase in benefits, a 17 percent increase in operations and a decrease of $425 in capital. Ms. Morris said there are six cost centers in the budget. The service program cost center increase represents a full year of funding for the programs for which the State has been writing the checks. The County now has to write the checks and fund the State's share of some programs. There are some project increases in child day care primarily due to welfare reform. That is the only cost center in the Social Services budget that shows any increase. Everything else remains about the same. The Department is still finding out what welfare reform will mean in the State of Virginia. Kathy Ralston is an expert on the subject. Ms. Thomas said she understands 700 jobs in this area are needed for people now on welfare. She asked if that will cause an increase in the Employment Services part of the budget, and will the State fund that? Ms. Ralston said in Albemarle there could be a need for about 158 jobs. In the City of Charlottesville, it would be about 400 jobs. They don't know what agencies will be involved. The bill requires that it be statewide, but there is no money to do that. Ms. Morris said that in the Rental Assistance Program, $5000 was not recommended for the county-funded Family Self-Sufficiency worker who assists clients with transportation and other costs related to attending school, training or securing employment. She requested that it be put on the list of Unfunded Priorities. March 13, 1995 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 18) 000160 Ms. Thomas asked if this program will be impacted by the Housing Coordinator moving that office to deal with Housing Section 8 and other programs. Ms. White said the Housing Counselor would be providing some other functions not necessarily connected with the FSS unit. The FSS unit would use this $5000 to fund additional expenses associated with going to school, etc. Housing counseling with be focused on how to secure housing, how to secure loans, etc. They are separate functions. Ms. Thomas asked if this is a major problem. Do Family Self-Sufficiency clients get to the point of going for a job interview and they can't make it because they don't have the transportation or child care? Ms. Morris said that is correct. Sometimes it may be something as small as needing a uniform for a job. Mr. Martin asked if this request will come back to the Board under Housing. Ms. White said ~yes." Mr. Martin said he would like to get some more information. His inclination is to add it to the list of Unfunded Priories, but he always tries to make a distinction between programs that help people trying to help themselves, and programs that just try to help. His own clients often want everything done for them. He wants to be sure the program is making that distinction, and what is being requested is to offset a real hindrance to the client obtaining employment. Ms. Morris said there is the same kind of concern regarding the Employ- ment Services Program where they have a small amount of money to help people. Problems with automobiles are common, lack of insurance, repairs, etc. Mr. Perkins asked if the Board wanted to wait for the presentation on the Rental Assistance Program before adding this to the Unfunded Priority List. It was the consensus to wait. There were no further questions from Board members. Parks and Recreation: Requested, $1,002,119; recommended, $986,814. Patrick K. Mullaney, Director, present. The Department of Parks and Recreation provides recreational facilities and leisure opportunities to residents of Albemarle County. The Department offers a full schedule of supervised recreational activities, including swimming programs, and is responsible for providing administration and grounds maintenance to all County parks, as well as the Darden Towe Memorial Park (formerly the Rivanna Park) and the Teen Center. The Department is responsi- ble for grounds maintenance at the County Office Building, for the buildings on Court Square and at other County facilities (Walnut Creek, Chris Greene, Mint Springs, Beaver Creek, Totier, Ivy Creek, Crozet Park, Whitewood Road Park, Greenwood Community Center, Meadows Community Center, Scottsville Community Center, and the Milton, Hatton, Warren and Scottsville boat launches). The responsibilities of the Department are broken down into six major divisions: Administration, Parks Maintenance, Summer Swim Programs, Recreation and Athletics Classes, Community Centers and Special Activities. Two City/County programs are separate funds: the Teen Center and the Darden Towe Memorial Park. The overall Parks and Recreation budget increases by $23,996 (2.5%) to a total of $986,814. This reflects a 1.4 percent increase in salaries, a 5.7 percent decrease in benefits, a 1.9 percent increase in operations and a $3540 increase in capital item replacements. Major department requests not funded in the County Executive's recommen- dation are: Slope Mower - Needed for cutting steep slopes at Towe Park $15,055 Pool Rental Fees - Request from the Charlottesville YMCA Aquatics Club (CYAC) for assistance with pool rental fees for the purpose of reducing fees charged to program users by ten percent and to permit the CYAC to grant scholarships for County swimmers who cannot afford the current fee $9,575. The County Executive recommends funding at the baseline level of $986,814, which includes $11,330 in additional funds for operating expenses and four cashiers for the Greenwood Arts and Crafts Fair. In the current year March 13, 1995 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 19) 000 .6 the County took over operations of this show, which previously had been run by the Greenwood Arts and Crafts Fair chairperson. If the County takes over the operation of the show, Parks and Recreation predicts that total revenues could be $17,400, out of which $11,400 are new revenues. Funding is recommended in the amount of $2000 for 100 hours of additional off-duty police security at the Warren Ferry river access. Currently, the James River Runners fund one- half of the cost of security with the County funding the other half. These funds will be needed if the County secures a lease agreement or purchases a property at the Warren Ferry to provide adequate parking and preserve the river access. Mr. Mullaney said the recommended funding will fund salary increases for their part-time employees and bring the salaries of lifeguards and recreation leaders up to a competitive level with the City; it continues funding for the maintenance of the Route 20 Entrance Corridor; it allows replacement of some mowing equipment; and, it funds an increase of $3235 in the therapeutic playground program. That is necessary because of an increased staff ratio demanded by state licensing requirements. Although the baseline budget maintains the current level of services, Parks will pick up additional work such as the routine maintenance of six Little League fields, which includes weekly mowing and dragging of those fields. Parks has taken steps to increase efficiency by eliminating 290 hours from the lifeguard schedule through a restructuring based on peak swimming hours. Self-sustaining programs were revised in order to decrease expenses and increase revenues. In particular, they have cut the schedule of exercise classes because the private clubs are taking away some clients. The Over-30 Men's Basketball League which is a program the YMCA ran before they lost their Park Street gym, has been dropped. Mr. Mullaney said the budget does not fund $9575 requested by the Charlottesville YMCA Aquatics Club (CYAC) for its swim program and it does not fund the cost of 10 replacement picnic tables and grills which they will try to fund out of the current budget. Mr. Martin said he would like to put at least a portion of the cost of the swim pool rental fees on the list. Ms. Humphris said she was going to ask for more information on this item, the pros/cons, precedents, what kind of priority this is, and how this compares to other things the Board is asked to do. She is not sure this is an area into which the Board should venture given the fact that the swim club is in competition. Mr. Martin said he is just suggesting that the issue be kept alive and get more information. He would like to know whether it would be precedent setting, the cost, who is being served, etc. Ms. Humphris said the only number she came up with is that the amount comes to about $78 for each Albemarle County participant. That is a lot of money for a recreation program. Comparing this to all of the other priorities the Board has put on the list today, it does not measure up. Mr. Mullaney said the request is reduced from what CYAC originally requested. Twenty-two thousand dollars represented 72 percent of the total rental fee they are paying. CYAC was told that the County could not support the request because it included people in competitive swimming, people swimming six or more times per week. The request made to the Board makes the program equal to the other youth sports activities where two hours per week are provided for practice and competition. The $9575 would cover two hours of pool time per week for each person in the swim program. CYAC will give the County that amount of money in scholarships for scholarship swimmers applying for the program. He suggested that if the Board is interested in this program, that the money be disbursed just for scholarship requests. That way, the County would truly be serving people who cannot afford to be in the program. Mr. Martin said he would like to see the additional information. He has heard complaints many times about the costs of the swim programs. Since the County does not have any swimming pools, and fees must be paid, it makes the cost large. Mr. Mullaney said the request from Parks only goes toward pool rental. It does not cover other CYAC expenses such as coaches. Ms. Humphris asked who would determine the need for a scholarship. Mr. Mullaney said the department would handle that the same way they now handle the summer swim program. People have to come in and qualify through the Social Services Department. March 13, 1995 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 20) O00 t3 Ms. Humphris said she is leery of this because she feels the County is being stampeded. Any time there is a push for something like this with little information being furnished to justify the request, she feels the County is liable to be pushed into something just because of the persistence of the people doing it. She wants to be sure it is compared with other things the County does'. Ms. Thomas asked if the James River Runners is still paying one-half of the cost of security at the Warren site. Mr. Mullaney said at the time the County takes over ownership or lease of that property, he thinks that would become the County's total responsibility. The Runners might then have to pay a fee to use the property. It will depend on what can be worked out with Mr. Hawranke, the current property owner. Darden Towe Memorial Park: Requested, $187,435; recommended, $104,995. Darden Towe Memorial Park is a 100-acre multi-use recreational facility offering softball fields, a little league baseball field, tennis courts, picnic shelters, multi-purpose fields, a running trail, river access and nature activities. The park also contains a 7300 foot section of the Rivanna Greenway. The expenses of the Park are shared by the City (38.3%) and County (61.7%), with the County Department of Parks and Recreation being responsible for the operation of the facility. The County employs four full-time personnel including a park foreman, a senior groundskeeper and two groundskeepers. One part-time laborer is hired during the Summer months to assist with grounds maintenance. Staff duties include grass mowing and trimming, the care and operation of the irrigation system, turf, landscape and building care, safety inspections, trash pickup, and preparing playing fields and courts for activities. The City is in charge of scheduling the softball games at Towe Park and the County schedules all other activities. The total budget for Towe Memorial Park is $191,270, an increase of $6630 (3.6%) over FY 1994-95. The County's share of the budget is $104,995, or an increase of $8200 (8.5%) over FY 1994-95. Parks and Recreation will attempt to fund a $5555 expanded program request for a turf mower out of the current year's budget for Towe Park. Recreation fees of $16,600 account for approximately 0.09 percent of the total budgeted revenues. The County Executive recommends funding at the baseline level of $104,995. No expanded requests are funded in the County Executive's recommen- dation. Mr. Mullaney said there are two reasons for the increase in this budget. An increase of $1395 in insurance is due to a more accurate breakdown in costs by the County's insurance carrier. The other is $6100 for replacement of an equipment item. If those two items are deducted, the budget actually de- creased by five-tenths of one percent. The budget maintains the current level of service, and they are going to try to add the regular maintenance of the 7300 feet of the Rivanna Greenway. The County's share of funding actually goes up about 8.5 percent, half of that increase being a result of the two items just mentioned. The other half of that increase is due to an increase in the County's responsibility from 59.5 percent to 61.7 percent. At Towe Park, the operating expenses are determined by the past two years attendance. Ms. Humphris said she has a question about the slope mower. It is noted that it takes 10 employee days to mow now as compared to two employee days to mow using a slope mower. She said there is no comparison of costs furnished. Mr. Mullaney said Parks is using a slope mower at Towe Park which is borrowed from their regular crew. They are using it on weekends because that is the only time the regular crew is not using it. There is no compensation for this back into the regular Parks/Recreation budget. That is basically the only way to get the work done at Towe Park, and especially the large slope going down to the ballfields from the main parking lot. This is the mower used on the dams where the rider stays upright through a swivel on the hillsides. The only other option is to walk it. Mr. Perkins said he believes the grass is mowed too much. Maybe it should not be mowed more than two or three times a year. Mr. Mullaney said the Towe Park is an urban area park and the level of expectation there from March 13, 1995 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 21) 000 63 residents in the City is higher than what the County has at some of its parks. There were no further questions about this item at this time. Teen Center: Requested, $41,168; recommended, $41,168. The Charlottesville-Albemarle Teen Center is a division of the Parks and Recreation Department, and is a cooperative operation between the City of Charlottesville and the County. It was created at the recommendation of the Charlottesville/Albemarle Children and Youth Commission and provides a place for teens ages 13 to 19 to gather and to socialize in a safe, supervised, substance free environment. The Center is run by teens for teens. Activities encourage opportuni- ties for education, socialization, career development and cultivating of recreational interests. The center is drug free, smoke free, and alcohol free. Satellite activities also are planned at other locations throughout the County. The program is supervised by a full-time teen center director and part-time employees working a total of 1768 hours. The program is adminis- tered by the County and funded equally by the City and the County. The total budget for the Teen Center is $82,336, the County's share being $41,168. The increase over the FY 1994-95 adopted budget is $693 (1.7%). Major categories of expenses for the center are approximately $35,805 in compensation, $7610 in benefits, $28,730 in lease and utility costs and the remaining $10,191 is for other operating expenses. The County Executive recommends baseline funding for the Teen Center, with the County's share being $41,168. Mr. Mullaney said the County was notified by the City a week ago that the City wants their share to be reduced to 33 percent of the budget to reflect usage by City teens. Now that the Center is operational, they were going to target activities which would increase participation by City teens. The Center opened in March, 1994 and the lease runs until January, 1996. He will talk to City staff about this. There are several options if the City sticks with this plan, but staff has no recommendation at this time. Mr. Tucker said staff knows what the City is trying to do. A lot depends on what this Board feels the County should apply to the Teen Center. Staff will bring back a definitive proposal with costs attached. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENTS: Planning: Requested, $876,319; recommended, $794,561. V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development, was present. The Department of Planning and Community Development is responsible for reviewing and developing plans that reflect County concerns over the preserva- tion of the environment, the provision of efficient public facilities and services, the provision of housing opportunities, and the effective utiliza- tion of the area's land resources. The Department is composed of two divi- sions. The Community Development Division is responsible for the development and maintenance of the Comprehensive Plan and other long-range planning activities in transportation, housing and public facilities. The Planning Division is responsible for the review of development applications, adminis- tration and enforcement of the Subdivision Ordinance, Site Plan Ordinance, review of special use permits and rezoning applications. The Planning Department budget decreases by a total of $60,645 (8.3%) reflecting a 0.1 percent decrease in salaries, a 1.2 percent decrease in benefits, a 0.6 percent decline in operations and a decrease of $2850 in capital purchases. The decline in salary and benefit costs is due largely to staff changes in the current year which resulted in lower salaries for some positions. Significant changes in the line item budget include a $6135 (1680%) increase in repair and maintenance of office equipment to cover the Building Locator System. Planning will attempt to fund the following expanded program requests out of its current year budget: Three, four-drawer filing cabinets for $750, three, two-way portable radios for $2400, and archiving official zoning map records for $3000. March 13, 1995 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 22) 000 64 Funding for the Planning Department is recommended at $794,561, which includes funding for the following expanded program requests: $25,956 to fund the GIS technician position on a permanent basis; $15,000 of a total $25,000 request for printing and binding of the revised Comprehensive Plan; and, $25,000 for new aerial photography of the County. Funding for the GIS technician, who is actually paid out of E-911 revenues, is contingent upon approval of a proposed increase in the E-911 maintenance surcharge from $0.64 to $0.70, currently recommended to go into effect in May, 1996. The County Executive recommends partial funding of printing and binding costs of the Comprehensive Plan due to a lower projected cost of producing the report than was originally requested. Finally, the aerial photography is needed to update critical geographic information used by staff, developers and the general public in assessing development activity and environmental resource protection. The last aerial photographs were made in the early 1990s and new information is needed for use in conjunction with the Building Locator System (E-911), as well as other planning uses. Major department requests not included in the County Executive's recommendation are: Funding in the amount of $15,608 to upgrade a part-time planner position to a full-time senior planner position reflecting the impact of having the Comprehensive Plan review and the Building Locator System being placed in the Planning Department; and, the County was requested to extend bus service out to Wal-Mart on Route 29 North. A contract with the Charlottes- ville Transit Service (CTS) to provide regular bus service to Wal-Mart would cost $50,000. Mr. Cilimberg with the building locator system coming on line, staffing will be affected. He had included in the budget a position to operate the building locator system on a daily basis. It was found during work on the E- 911 system that the Resource Planner was very involved with getting the street names and addresses on-line and meeting the public demands. It is anticipated that will not change a lot. At one time, about fifty percent of that person's time was used in Community Development. In effect, that division lost half of one position. Therefore, it was requested to upgrade a part-time planner position to a full-time senior planner position, particularly with Community Development's responsibility for the Comprehensive Plan, with the fiscal impact model going into effect soon, and to have some flexibility in dealing with time expectations. Mr. Bowerman said the Local Government Advisory Committee's Council on Information Management, just paid for a satellite spread of the State of Virginia. He suggested that Mr. Cilimberg check to see is this would help the County with the request for aerial photography. Mr. Marshall said he would like for the Planning Department to furnish business cards to the Planning Commissioners so they can identify themselves when they are on a piece of property. Ms. Humphris said she knows there have been problems in the past with Commissioners going on property and being asked to leave. She thinks the Board should be talking about the legality of that. Mr. Bowerman said the Board has discussed having different signs to give notice of zoning hearings, and to have the County responsible for erection of those signs. He thinks that would be a good contribution to public awareness of public hearings. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Department has been looking into that request. Ms. Humphris said she would like to add funding to upgrade the part-time planner to a full-time senior planner to the list of Unfunded Priorities. Ms. Thomas agreed, but said she did not favor funding bus service to Wal-Mart. Mr. Marshall did not favor that request. Zoning: Requested, $453,136; recommended, $394,596. Amelia G. McCulley, Zoning Administrator, present. The Zoning Department works independently, but in conjunction with the Planning and Engineering Departments, to enforce the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. The department provides interpretations of the Zoning Ordinance and information regarding applications for special use permits, home occupation permits and sign permits. They review building permit applications and March 13, 1995 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 23) 0001.65 provide information about the County's development review process. The Architectural Review Board is also staffed by the Zoning Department. The Zoning Department consists of a zoning administrator, a deputy zoning administrator, an administrative secretary, an office assistant, an engineering inspector (who was transferred from the Engineering Department during the current year to take the place of a zoning inspector), two zoning inspectors, a zoning assistant and a senior design planner. The Zoning Department's total FY 1995-96 budget is $394,596 and repre- sents a $31,564 (8.7%) increase over the current year's budget, nine percent in salaries, 11.6 percent in benefits, 1.5 percent in operations and a $400 decrease in capital purchases. The increase in salary and compensation costs is due largely to the transfer of engineering staff in the current year plus vacancies filled by senior employees from other departments. The County Executive recommends funding at the baseline level of $394,596, which reflects reductions in several line items to meet the recom- mended baseline budget target of two percent over the FY 1994-95 appropria- tion. Major department reauests not funded in the County Executive's recommen- dation: Zoning Inspector - Request to fund a full-time zoning inspector who is needed due to the increasingly complex process of inspecting new businesses and certain residential structures, the rising number of public requests for preliminary conferences and the numerous changes in regulations and topography. The requested cost of $48,569 includes approximately $2600 in additional operating costs, $2100 for office furniture and equipment and $17,529 for a truck. Architectural Review and Code Compliance - This request is for funding aerial surveillance ($300) for the purpose of reducing code violations and for $200 in additional costs in excess of the baseline for certified engineers' reports. Ms. McCulley said the most critical request for the department is for a fourth zoning inspector. This position affects all aspects of the depart- ment's function. They wish to do more cross training so inspectors now assist in the office answering general inquiries from the public, etc. They hope to improve client service by decreasing response time to the general public and to those citizens making regular submittals. The more one has to do, the more likely it is that one will make an inadvertent error. Zoning can assist the public by catching errors before someone makes an investment, or builds a building that needs to be moved. Ms. McCulley said there have been a couple of things that have changed since they got additional staff in July, 1990. The Entrance Corridor Overlay District was adopted in October, 1990. Not too long ago, its purview was increased to include new building permits. It is not just site plans for entirely new developments and signs, but also building permits for changing facades of buildings. That requires a more intensive review than regular site plans. There are 18 entrance corridors, and that is where most development is occurring. In August, 1994 an accessory apartment zoning text amendment was adopted. That zoning inspection is more involved because they actually go into a house and take measurements. It is an internal and external review. It requires more contract with the property owner. As fringes of the urban area are developed, they are getting into the more difficult land areas. There are more approval conditions, and more approvals in general. The Sign Ordinance has been amended, and has added more staff time in negotiating with the owners for a better result. This additional position is a critical need for the department. Ms. McCulley said funds were requested for aerial photograph in the way of surveillance. They will try to have it done free in conjunction with the State Police or the County Police. The most recent case involved a property with a very large trash dump. Zoning was able to get the information needed in order to obtain a search warrant to go onto the property. She said it was an amazing clean-up. They are finding more situations where this type of thing is needed. March 13, 1995 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 24) 00016(; Ms. McCulley said as to the need for a certified engineer's report, soon Zoning will need to turn to others to provide that engineering report to prove that something does or does not meet County-imposed conditions. This is where something is already build, and a complaint is lodged. The County has to prove that something is a violation. During the review process, the applicant does have to provide a report to zoning to show they can comply with regula- tions. After that, Zoning has to make sure they stay in compliance. Ms. Humphris said given the growth the County is experiencing and the conditions described of which most Board members are aware, she thinks the full-time zoning inspector is a critical need. Mr. Marshall asked the educational requirements for the job. Ms. McCulley said it calls for some college courses or equivalent experience. Mr. Marshall asked if there is specific schooling furnished for a zoning inspec- tor. Ms. McCulley said that recently a certification program has been developed, but enough people have not yet passed to recognize the program in the State. They would like to make that a prerequisite. She said they are also looking for someone with code enforcement experience. Mr. Bowerman said he would be willing to put this on the Unfunded Priority List if the request for the $500 for Architectural Review and Code Compliance funds is dropped. Ms. McCulley agreed. Extension Service: Requested, $116,108; recommended, $111,208. Charley W. Goodman, Unit Chairman, was present. The Virginia Cooperative Extension Service provides citizens of Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville with the educational re- sources and research of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute (VPI-SU). Local staff provides educational programs on nutritional food preparation practices, production and marketing techniques for commercial horticulturists and gardening information for homeowners. The Extension Service also administers and supervises the County's 4H program which serves over 1000 County young- sters. The County's share of the Cooperative Extension Service reflects the salary of a full-time secretary, and one-third of the salary and fringe benefit costs for 2.5 extension agents, plus telephone service and office supplies. The Extension Service's FY 1995-96 total budget increases by $3482 (3.2%) over the current year, which reflects a 4.1 percent increase in salaries, a 3.3 percent increase in benefits and a 12.4 percent increase in operations. The County Executive recommends funding at the baseline level of $111,208 which reflects a recommended reduction in operational expenses for the Extension Service for the purpose of meeting the recommended budget target of two percent over the current year's baseline. The recommended reductions in operating expenses include a $1700 decrease in rental payments to reflect an annual CPI (Consumer Price Index) of 2.6 percent for 1994 and $2900 in telecommunications expenses. There are no expanded requests. Mr. Goodman said the difference between the requested amount and the recommended amount is mainly for telephone services. Since the Extension Service moved to new office space in the Albemarle County Service Authority Building. they have to operate their own telephone system, and it is much different in cost than when they were in the County Office Building. Another increased cost is rent. They have a five-year lease with the ACSA and the rent increases each year in accordance with the CPI on May 1. They do not know exactly what the rent will be for next year. Ms. Thomas asked if the rental payment in the budget assumes a certain rate increase. Mr. Tucker said staff will have to talk to the ACSA about that. There is no need for worry at this time. The County would have to make up any difference some how. Mr. Goodman said as to the telephone system, they opened the office with a loaded system and have cut down to three lines. They still need those three lines coming in, and four lines go out, including the computers which are linked to universities across the nation. March 13, 1995 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 25) 0001:67 Mr. Perkins said he thinks the telephones would be the same as the rent. If there are not enough funds, the County will have to pick it up and pay it. Mr. Tucker said that can be added to the Unfunded Priority List. There were no further questions from Board members. Soil and Water Conservation: Requested, $30,334; recommended, $24,779. Steve K. Meeks was present. The County provides the Soil and Water Conservation District with funding for a part-time clerical position (60%) plus funding for copy supplies and expenses. In FY 1991-92, the Soil and Water Conservation District began the administration of the Water Resources Protection Act Ordinance. The Soil and Water Conservation total budget request is $30,334, representing a 6.5 percent increase over FY 1994-95. Of the total request, $13,920 represents the requested budget of the Water Resources Protection Act (WRPA) implementation program. An additional $5720 is requested in order to expand the WRPA technical position from 10 hours per week to 20 hours per week, plus an increase in the hourly wage for this position from $10.00 per hour to $10.50 per hour. The County Executive recommends funding in the amount of $24,779, which includes full funding of the Soil and Water Conservation Division budget of $16,414, and $8365 for the WRPA, which reflects a recommended two percent increase over the FY 1994-95 baseline budget of $8200. The expended technical position is not recommended for funding. Mr. Meeks said the only difference between the budget for the Soil and water District and what staff recommended is an increase of 10 hours for the WRPA Ordinance position. The request was not to expand that person to 20 hours per week in that work area, but to expand that position so that person can work in other technical areas beyond the Ordinance. The Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS) which is now know as NRCS, has lost two staff positions in the district, particularly in the Albemarle office area. The district is no longer to rely on their assistance and technical advise and service to landowners. The district has seen an increase in requests from citizens in the County for assistance in conservation practices, as well as complaints. The decrease from last year's budget represents a change in staffing for the secretarial position. A new person was hired at a lower grade level to make up the difference. Ms. Thomas asked if the State has reduced its funding. Mr. Meeks said the State has reduced its funding to the district. NRCS is a Federal program where the district offices are housed so there is a lot of interaction between the two agencies. Historically, both agencies have shared staffing, secre- tarial support, equipment, etc. There has been a reduction on the Federal side. The NRCS now is devoted mainly to the administration of the Federal Farm Bill. They are not able to respond to landowner requests. They also feel that if the job can be changed from a 10-hour per week position to a 20- hour per week position, they might possibly be able to retain the employee longer. Mr. Marshall asked about the release of Lady Bugs. Mr. Meeks said that two or three years ago some state agencies released some Japanese Lady Bugs for several projects not related to each other. For many years, it was thought the program was a failure because no one saw the lady bugs. Last year they appeared statewide, so the district is getting a lot of telephone calls. They are having one benefit in this area that was not expected. They feed on insects which attach hemlock trees. There were no further questions from Board members. Gypsy Moth: Requested, $24,121; recommended, $24,121. Steven K. Meeks was present. The Gypsy Moth program was initiated in 1988 to address the encroaching infestation of gypsy moths into Albemarle County. A full-time coordinator, one full-time technical aide, 12 part-time surveyors and the operational costs of pest management have been funded by Federal grant funds, State spraying March 13, 1995 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 26) funds, local tax funds and fees from landowners. The current fee level is $10/acre of land sprayed. The County Executive recommends funding at the baseline level of $24,121. Mr. Meeks said this program operates on a year-to-year basis not knowing what the Federal and State governments are going to approve in the way of funding. No significant changes are anticipated in this year's operation, although the problem does appear to be spreading around the County. In past years, the problem was contained primarily to the White Hall District, but this year the moths have come from Nelson County into the Scottsville Dis- trict. The problem is still there. There are heavy infestations in the Covesville/Heards Mountain area. The program is still a landowner/cost share program where any landowner wishing to participate in the spraying program is helping to fund that program. There were no questions from Board members. Rental Assistance Program: Requested, $243,093; recommended, $238,093. Roxanne W. White, Executive Assistant, present. The Rental Assistance Program is responsible for administering three housing programs in the County. The Section 8 Housing Certificate Program provides Federal rental assistance for up to 202 eligible families who pay no more than 30 percent of their adjusted income for rent and utilities. The Moderate Rehabilitation Program currently has 175 Moderate Rehabilitation units, mainly in Scottsville and Whitewood Village, but there are several located on Pen Park Road and in the Four Seasons Complex. The housing voucher program allows up to 34 families to choose units above the fair market rent established for the other programs if they can afford the difference. A Family Self-Sufficiency (FSS) Program, mandated by HUD, was implemented in Albemarle County in the current year to give Section 8 voucher and certificate families the opportunity to become independent of subsidized programs. The Rental Assistance Program is overseen by the director and deputy director of the Social Services Department. That office is staffed by an office assis- tant, an accounting technician, a housing counselor (who works in the FSS Program), two part-time eligibility workers, a housing assistant and a housing inspector. The Rental Assistance Program budget increases by $7037 (3%) to a total of $238,093. This total reflects a 11.7 percent increase in salaries, a 14.7 percent increase in benefits and a 15.5 percent increase in operations. The increases in salary and benefits reflect the addition of a part-time housing counselor position to begin a comprehensive housing counseling program as part of an expanded Housing Office. Funds for the position were transferred from the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program (AHIP) where the County had funded a part-time counselor in the current year, a position that ended in December. There are no significant increases or decreases in the line item budget. The County Executive recommends funding at the baseline level of $238,093. Major department request not included in the County Executive's recom- mendation is: FSS Client Costs. Additional funds were requested to assist Family Self-Sufficiency clients with transportation and other miscellaneous costs associated with attending school, training or seeking a job at a cost of $5O00. Ms. White said the rental assistance program and the housing coordina- tor's budget will be in one cost center identified as the Housing Office as of July 1, 1995. Mr. Martin asked who makes the decision about how to use the FSS funds. Obviously, if it is only $5000, it won't be used for too many people. Ms. White said currently, there is a FSS worker employed and paid out of the General Assistance program in Social Services. That person will decide how the funds will be allocated. Mr. Martin asked how many people that person serves in the course of a year. Ms. Kathy Ralston said that person began work in August, and as of January they had recruited about 10 people. They are required to have 60 people by April of 1996. March 13, 1995 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 27) 000169 Mr. Martin said some people turn molehills into mountains, and he does not think they are helped by allowing them to do that. He wonders if the $5000 really goes to help the person turn the mountain into a molehill. Earlier, it was mentioned that money might go for a uniform. For some of his clients, if there is need for a uniform before they can begin work, they usually come up with the uniform somehow. Ms. Ralston said the request was based on previous experience in the Employment Services Program. There is $21,000 in that program that serves between 150 and 200 people a year with transportation, books, tuition, car repairs, insurance. If these people have vehicles at all, they are usually not in good shape. In order to get them on the road, there might be a need for $200 in repairs and insurance. This program might pay for three months of insurance, but the client has to pay for the repair costs. The people who live further out in the County get the most money. Mr. Perkins asked if the request should be placed on the list of unfunded priorities. Mr. Martin said "yes." There were no further questions from Board members. Housing Coordinator: Requested, $76,745; recommended, $43,745. Roxanne W. White, Executive Assistant, present. The Housing Coordinator's office was established in November, 1993 based on a recommendation of the Housing Advisory Committee and subsequent funding by the Board of Supervisors in FY 1993-94. The responsibilities of this office are to provide technical assistance, coordination and general housing information to other county departments, nonprofit housing providers, private organizations and the general public, to develop implementation programs and strategies for identified housing initiatives and to act as the implementing agency or to identify a suitable agency. Additionally, the housing coordina- tor ensures that housing programs and activities undertaken in the County are non-duplicated, and also assesses and identifies major community housing issues for the purpose of developing policies, initiatives and programs to address these needs. The office is to provide staff to the Housing Committee and other ad hoc committees, as appropriate, and to work with them to develop an implementation plan for county-wide housing priorities. The FY 1995-96 budget for the Housing Coordinator decreases by $1526 (3.4%) over the current year's appropriation. The decrease reflects a two percent increase in salary costs, a 25.4 percent decrease in benefits and a 5.8 percent decrease in operating expenses. There are no significant in- creases or decreases in the line item budget. The County Executive recommends full funding for the Housing Coordina- tor. However, a major department request not funded is: Funding was re- quested for a full-time housing education specialist in the Housing Coordina- tor's Office. Full funding for this position was not recommended since a part-time housing counselor position is being funded in the Housing Office using funds previously allocated to AHIP for the same type of program. There were no questions from Board members. COUNTY JUDICIAL DEPARTMENTS. Circuit Court: Requested, $72,031; recommended, $72,031. Rick Huff made the presentation. The Circuit Court of the County is part of the Sixteenth Judicial Circuit of Virginia and is the Court of Record for the County. This court has general jurisdiction of all types of cases: civil, equity and criminal. In addition, the Circuit Court is the court to which appeals from the General District Court and the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court are taken. The office has one legal services assistant and a part-time law clerk, plus compensation for witnesses, jurors and jury commissioners. The staff is involved in providing support services for the judge in the scheduling and hearing of cases. The County is responsible for funding all support staff and the operational expenses of the court. The FY 1995-96 budget increases by $4935 (7.4%) reflecting an 11.7 percent increase in salaries, a 9.8 percent increase in benefits and a 1.9 March 13, 1995 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 28) 000170 percent increase in operating costs. The increased salary and benefit costs reflect a reclassification of the legal services assistant in the current year. There are no significant increases or decreases in operational ac- counts. Decreased local revenues reflect the fact that the Circuit Court Judge no longer spends one day a week in Greene County which reimbursed 20 percent of that salary and benefits. The County Executive recommends funding at the baseline level of $72,031. There are no expanded requests. There were no questions from Board members. General District Court: Requested, $13,650; recommended, $12,150. Rick Huff made the presentation. The General District Court serves the County and is comprised of three divisions: Criminal Division, Civil Division and Traffic Division. In addition, the court also decides zoning, hunting and fishing license matters. The office consists of a clerk and five deputy clerks whose salaries are paid by the State. The County pays for the operational expenses of the court. The total budget for the General District Court is $12,150, representing a two percent increase in operational expenses and $1500 for a personal computer to assist in the collection of unpaid fines and costs and to meet increased caseloads. The County Executive recommends funding at the baseline level of $12,150 to include a personal computer. There were no questions from Board members. Magistrate: Requested, $8,535; recommended, $8,535. Roxanne White made the presentation. The Magistrate is appointed and supervised by the Judge of the Sixteenth Judicial Circuit Court and serves as the initial contact with the criminal justice system. The operational costs of the Magistrate's office are shared 50/50 with the City of Charlottesville. Salaries are paid by the State. The Magistrate's budget decreases by $2565 (23.1%) due to significant capital purchases in FY 1994-95. The County Executive recommends funding at the baseline level of $8535. There were no questions from Board members. Juvenile & Domestic Relations Court: Requested, $43,294; recommended, $37,044. Rick Huff made the presentation. The Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court has jurisdiction over cases involving violations of the law committed by or against persons under the age of eighteen, family disputes or other domestic-related problems. The Court is comprised of two components: the Court itself hears juvenile cases, child abuse and child neglect cases; the Court Service Unit provides after-care and probation, intake services to the community and domestic relations counseling. The operational costs, including the total salary for two deputies and the fringe benefits for three County deputies serving as bailiffs for the Court, are shared on a 50/50 basis with the City. The Juvenile Court's baseline budget decreases by $991 (2.6%). The cost- sharing formula divides the costs of operation between the County and the City. The County pays the deputies directly in the Sheriff's budget and the City reimburses the County by increasing its share of the Juvenile Court expenses. The County Executive recommends funding at the baseline level of $37,044. No expanded proqram requests are funded in the County Executive's recommendation. Major Department Requests Not Funded in the County Executive's Recommen- dation are: Voice Mail System - To fund the County's share of purchasing and installing an AT&T Voice Mail system. The County Executive recommends March 13, 1995 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 29) 000171 that the Juvenile Court investigate the possibility of purchasing voice mail services from CENTEL or hooking to the County[s voice mail system as a remote user, which would lower the cost of this request $5500 Personal Computer - To share with the City the cost of a personal computer (50%) for preparing dockets and the like $750 Mr. Huff said staff probably should have included the $750 for the computer. That would take the department back close to level funding. He thinks that was an omission on staff's part. City staff has indicated that they will probably do this also. There were no questions from Board members. Clerk of Circuit Court: Requested, $444,709; recommended, $444,709. Rick Huff made the presentation. The Clerk of the Circuit Court is responsible for the maintenance of all court records, including the recordation of deeds, deeds of trusts, mechanic's liens, partnerships and fiduciary accounts, the docketing of judgments, financing and termination statements under the Uniform Commercial Code. The Clerk also processes motions for judgments involving vehicle accidents, suits for divorce, condemnations, injunctions, partition of land, appeals from General District Court, adoption proceedings and name changes. Other duties include the probation of wills, appointments of estate executors and adminis- trators and the issuance of marriage licenses. The Clerk, a constitutional officer elected by the citizens of Albemarle County, and the Clerk's staff are on the County payroll system, but all salaries and a portion of the total benefits are reimbursed to the County by the State Compensation Board. The State also shares in the expenses of indexing, audit services, postal services and public liability insurance. The staff of the Clerk's office includes a chief deputy, five deputy clerks and two office assistants. The Clerk's budget increases by $6143 (1.4%). This includes a 1.8 percent increase in salaries, a 1.3 percent decrease in benefits, a 0.6 percent decline in operating costs and a request for $13,860 in replacement capital costs representing the annual lease purchase payment due on microfilm reader printers purchased in FY 1992-93 and the purchase of replacement typewriters. The County agreed to purchase a copier ($6140) for the Clerk's office from the County's copier fund, reimbursable by the Clerk's office through a $0.03 charge for copies which is budgeted in a line item entitled "copy supplies." The increase in compensation and benefit costs reflects the impact of a 2.25 percent increase in salaries which was authorized by the State to begin December 1, 1995. This Department is a net producer of revenues and is expected to provide $296,091 in revenues in excess of costs. The County Executive recommends funding at the baseline level of $444,709. Ms. Thomas asked about the purchase of replacement typewriters. Ms. Humphris said she recently took a form into that office and they had to use a typewriter to put the information on the form. There was no way it could be done on a computer. Mr. Tucker said that is true. It is almost impossible to have everything needed on a computer. Mr. Martin said the Juvenile Court just got its computers six months ago. Mr. Marshall said in his business he has to have a hard copy of information when he is inspected. He still uses a typewriter. There were no further questions from Board members. Sheriff: Requested, $760,452; recommended, $721,389. Rick Huff made the presentation. The Sheriff is a constitutional officer elected by the voters of the County and is responsible for processing and serving all civil and criminal papers, and providing courtroom security to the General District Court, Circuit Court and the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court. The office is also responsible for transporting prisoners and mental patients by court order. March 13, 1995 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 30) The Sheriff's office consists of the Sheriff, 13 full-time deputies (two are new deputies, funded by the Compensation Board, who were added in the current year, and one is the law enforcement deputy working in Scottsville who was added to the County's payroll in 1995, two part-time deputies, one secretary and a part-time office assistant). The Compensation Board funds the salaries, partial benefits and some of the operational costs of the Sheriff, plus 10 full-time deputies and the secretary. (The County funds the em- ployee's share of the Virginia Retirement System (VRS), VRS life insurance, and all medical and dental benefits.) The County funds the salaries, benefits and operating costs of a part-time deputy and the administrative assistant. Two full-time deputies working for the town of Scottsville also are on the County's payroll, but Scottsville reimburses the salary and benefits for one of these deputies and the benefits of the other. The City and the County jointly fund the salary and fringe benefit costs for the remaining two locally-funded deputies serving as bailiffs in the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court. The Sheriff's budget for FY 1995-96 is $721,389 (26.5%) reflecting a 24 percent increase in salaries, a 17 percent increase in benefits, a 2.9 percent increase in operational expenses and a 26.2 percent increase in capital costs. The increase in compensation and benefits is due largely to the addition of three deputies to the Sheriff's budget in the current year, the salaries and benefits of one of which are reimbursed by Scottsville~ In addition, a 2.25 percent salary increase for constitutional officers was funded effective December 1, 1995. The major increase in capital equipment costs is due to replacement of three vehicles in FY 1995-96. The County Executive recommends funding for the Sheriff's Office in the amount of $721,389 which reflects recommended reductions in operational costs to meet the target increase of two percent over the current year's baseline budget. Additional funds are recommended for several expanded program requests, including: $18,475 to purchase a prisoner transport van that also will serve as a vehicle for the deputy hired in the current year who is still without a vehicle; $6915 in additional operating expenses for the new officers hired in the current year (not included in the baseline budget) and $5019 to upgrade the locally-funded, part-time office assistant to a full-time posi- tion. The office assistant upgrade is needed so that this person can assume greater responsibility for answering the two radio systems and phone, doing civil process updates, receiving the mail and assisting the public. This will allow the full-time secretary to spend more time on administrative duties such as jurors, bookkeeping and the budget. A major department request not funded in the County Executive's recom- mendation is upgrading a locally-funded, part-time deputy to full-time to meet the increasing workload of the Sheriff's deputies as crime and arrests increase, at a cost of $25,388 which includes the cost of a full-sized vehicle. Mr. Marshall asked if the $25,388 could be added to the Unfunded Priority List so that Sheriff Hawkins might have a chance to come to a meeting and explain the request in detail. There was a consensus to this effect. There were no further questions from Board members. Fire/Rescue Division: Requested, $342,187; recommended, $278,962. Rick Huff made the presentation. Fire/Rescue Administration is a relatively new division that became operational in January, 1993 and it is comprised of a combination of four existing programs: fire/rescue management, training, fire prevention and fire/rescue volunteer services. The staff of this department coordinates volunteer fire/rescue services in the community, provides fire prevention inspection and education and assists volunteer companies and squads in their recruitment and retention of volunteers through training and support. Technical expertise and coordination of resources on hazardous materials incidents and large fires are now provided through this office to the volun- teers in the field. The FY 1995-96 budget of the Fire/Rescue Division increases by $33,097 (13.5%). Compensation costs rose by 3.1 percent, benefits decreased by 7.3 percent, operations increase by 12.6 percent and capital outlay increases by 000173 March 13, 1995 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 31) $15,310 to cover the purchase of an emergency shelter generator ($15,000) and the cost of one replacement vehicle for the fire prevention division ($15,310) . Major department requests not funded in the County Executive's recommen- dation are: Hazardous materials cleanup account $5,000 Training officer, $34,244. Funding was requested for a part-time training officer to develop a comprehensive training program for over 400 emergency personnel from entry to command level. This expansion is of particular significance given the increase in the mandated State and local requirements for minimum training levels for emergency personnel. Currently the department is not able to meet this goal and provides training in a class setting twice yearly at a central location. This would expand this program to provide an on-going structured curriculum to all emergency person- nel at various locations throughout the year. The division's original budget requested funding for a full-time Training Officer at $34,244. Based on a recommendation that a part-time position was sufficient to meet the training program objectives, the County Executive would recommend funding only a part-time position at $17,122, including $3950 in operating costs, if funds are avail- able. The County Executive recommends funding in the amount of $278,962, which includes an additional $10,000 to fund a portion of the cost of a part-time to full-time office assistant in the administrative division. (The Department's original request was for $19,110 for a full-time office assistant.) Mr. Huff said there was an emergency shelter generator placed in the East Rivanna Volunteer Fire Station this past January using a reappropriation of funds. This was done in order to have backup power for use of a shelter in case of emergency in the eastern part of the County. It is a target to do one of those a year. During the recent snowstorm, it was found that none of the heating systems in the schools could be operated because none of the schools have backup generators. He said the County Executive's recommendation also includes a part-time position in the Fire/Rescue Division as an assistant to the present secretary. Mr. Huff said he needs to make one correction under Fire/Rescue Volun- teer Services having to do with the Thomas Jefferson Medical Services. They requested $15,320, but that was based on an erroneous assumption that some of the other items in the budget belonged to them. The recommendation for the TJEMS at two percent should be $14,993. Mr. Huff said a request for a part-time training officer for the volunteers was also not recommended for funding by the County Executive. When the volunteers made a presentation last October, they said they would put together a long-range plan showing their needs. They were not able to complete that plan in time for this budget process. The training position is still subject to debate. Mr. Marshall said the TJEMS people are not in favor of this training position. Mr. Huff said this position was not to provide EMS training because the TJEMS provides training for the rescue people and the County funds that already, with the University providing life-support training for these people. This position was only for the fire side which does not have that same funding mechanism. Ms. Thomas said the wording of the request says ~given the increase in the mandated State and local requirements for minimum training levels for emergency personnel." She asked if it is not mandated can the County do without this position? Mr. Huff said that is being debated right now. The volunteers sent in a supplemental request just last week that said in lieu of a training position to coordinate their training, to give them $20,000 and they would undertake the training. The issue for staff has not been making sure the training is there, but making sure the instructor shows up, and shows up with all his materials. It is the coordination piece staff has been struggling with. That function used to be done by the City of Charlottesville and the volunteers were not happy with how that took place. Staff has been trying to do it with an hourly person at night, someone to open the building March 13, 1995 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 32) 000174 and make sure the class is taking place. The volunteers are not happy with that arrangement. Staff is going to be sure they meet their minimum state requirements. There is nobody checking up on training requirements for volunteer firemen. Some one does this for rescue, but not for firemen, and that is the real issue staff is trying to deal with. There were no further questions from the Board. Jefferson Country Fire & Rescue Association (JCFRA) : Requested, $651,000; recommended, $541,315. Rick Huff made the presentation. The Jefferson Country Fire and Rescue Association represents seven volunteer fire departments and three rescue squads who provide services to Albemarle County residents. The volunteer fire departments are: North Garden, Scottsville, Crozet, Earlysville, East Rivanna, Stony Point and Seminole Trail; the three rescue squads are: Charlottesville-Albemarle (CARS), Western Albemarle (WARS) and Scottsville (SRS). The County's allocation to the volunteer fire departments is supple- mented by State revenues from the Fire Services Program, while the contribu- tion to the rescue squads is supplemented by Two-for-Life moneys that the County receives from the $2.00 surcharge placed on automobile registrations by the State. The State revenues received by the County are paid directly to the volunteer fire companies and rescue squads and are not used to reduce the County's commitment to these companies. JCFRA requests funding in the amount of $651,000 for FY 1995-96, reflecting a 53 percent increase over the current year. This included a request for $11,330 in additional funding for each of the seven volunteer fire companies and two rescue squads. An additional $36,880 was requested for CARS which reflects the need for Albemarle County to provide more equitable levels of funding to CARS in relation to the other rescue squads. CARS provides the majority of service calls in the County and should receive equitable funding. This increase is the third and final increase in a three-year commitment to bring funding for CARS equal to the funding of the other two squads in the County. Major request not funded in the County Executive's recommendation is: Additional funds for volunteer fire departments and rescue squads. This request would fund the $10,357 difference between the $60,000 contribu- tion originally requested for each of the volunteer fire and rescue companies and the $49,643 contribution (representing a two percent increase over the FY 1994-95 appropriated amounts) recommended by the County Executive for each company, $103,570. The County Executive recommends baseline funding of two percent for JCFRA volunteer fire companies and rescue squads for a total recommended budget of $496,430 not including State dollars from the Fire Services Program and the EMS Fund that are distributed to the companies and squads. The recommended baseline budget supports increased funding for CARS to bring that Squad's contribution up to the level of squads from other localities. Additionally, the County Executive recommends funding $100,000 of the agency's $130,000 expanded request for vehicle and building insurance and an additional $4000 for JCFRA recruitment and retention initiatives. Mr. Huff said the County Executive recommended funding $100,000 for a comprehensive vehicle and building liability insurance policy that would be bid by, and held by, the County on the behalf of JCFRA. This would reduce the money the individual departments are spending for insurance. He hopes that by the County bidding out the insurance all in one policy, a better price might be obtained. If that does not turn out to be true, the County may have to pay 90 percent of the cost, with the departments paying the other 10 percent. This would relieve some of the fund-raising burden from the volunteers and provide them more time for tuaining, answering calls, and for spending with their families. Mr. Huff said $4000 was requested for a recruitment and a retention program. Part of that money will be spent for supplies, and the other would be for an appreciation function for the volunteers. March 13, 1995 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 33) 000:t.75 Mr. Huff said this budget brings the CARS up to parity with the other two rescue squads in the county. This was a three-year commitment made to increase their allocation to recognize the number of calls they run each year. There were no questions from Board members. Joint Security Complex: Requested, $205,448; recommended, $205,448. Roxanne White made the presentation. The Albemarle-Charlottesville Joint Security Complex (Jail) provides jail services to Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville on a contractual basis. On a space available basis, the Complex houses prisoners from Greene, Madison and Fluvanna counties, as well as Federal prisoners. The main function of the jail is to provide pretrial and short-term detention as ordered by the courts of the localities served. This requires around-the- clock supervision, food service and medical services, as well as building upkeep and utility service. Most of the Jail's operating costs are reimbursed either by the State Department of Corrections or the State Compensation Board. The costs that are not reimbursed are divided between the City and County using a ratio deter- mined by each jurisdiction's actual use of the jail or number of prisoner days in the prior fiscal year. The FY 1995-96 budget request is based on 28,851 prisoner days for the County (37%) and 49,308 prisoner days for the City (63%). The overall budget of the Jail of $3,293,618 reflects an increase of $12,363 (0.38%) over FY 1994-95. The County's local share is $205,448, representing a 26 percent increase over the County's FY 1994-95 contribution and based on a local share ratio of 37 percent. Ms. White said she needs to make an amendment to the County Executive's recommendation. She said the contract calls for the local share to be based on the prior fiscal year and that is a 37 percent share. That reduces the County's recommended contribution to $186,095, a savings of $19,300. There were no questions from Board members. Mr. Tucker said that concludes all of the items which were scheduled on the agenda. He asked if the Board wanted to deal with the question of funding of constitutional officers' salaries. If not, staff needs some direction as to whether to move these people onto the County's pay scale, or consider some type of stipend. Mr. Huff said stipends can be handled in several ways. Should it be considered as a flat dollar amount or a percentage? The Board will want to know how much this idea will cost. Mr. Martin said to run both ideas. Personally, he would not mind figuring out some way to do it on merit, and not just on a flat fee for every constitutional officer, so the stipend goes with the person and not with the position. Mr. Tucker said staff had thought about that idea, but the constitutional officer would have to do the evaluation. Ms. Humphris asked if this is just for the elected and appointed officials and not for their employees. Mr. Tucker said it is the people who work for them, and not the elected official. Ms. Humphris said if this is for those people who are paid by the State compensation system, does it include the Joint Security Complex. Mr. Tucker said they have not been included. The constitutional officers have requested this year after year, and the Sheriff has asked that it be looked at again. Ms. Humphris said if it is to be looked at, in order to be fair, everybody in that category should be included. Mr. Tucker said there is no way the county could afford to put all of these people on the scale. Mr. Martin said putting them on the scale is not what he had thought about. It probably should be a stipend, and the amount of that stipend decided each year with no commitment to another year. Ms. Humphris said she does not denote any enthusiasm among Board members for this idea. Mr. Martin said he is definitely interested in doing some- March 13, 1995 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 34) 000176 thing. Mr. Tucker said the stipend would stay the same, a dollar amount, or a certain percentage, so it would not necessarily be increased every year. Mr. Martin said he does not want to go into detail now, but he is interested in at least discussing different possibilities. Mr. Tucker said the staff can probably rule out putting everyone on the scale, which would be much more expensive. Mr. Tucker said at the work session on Wednesday the 15th, the first item on the agenda is the School Division. He needs to alert the Board that the School Board will be discussing the mandatory health screening at its meeting tonight, requested by a School Board member. If the School Board supports eliminating the mandatory requirement for that screening, since this was a joint decision back in October, 1994, that will come to this Board on Wednesday. Mr. Martin said he believes that question is going to take a lot of time, and he does not think the Board will be able to do it on Wednesday. Agenda Item No. 3. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Board. Mr. Martin said he had talked with Mr. Wendell Wood last Friday. Mr. Wood is building at Briarwood and is finishing two phases. He wants to start on the third phase before he completes the first two. Part of the conditions of approval stated that he could not start on the third phase without complet- ing the first two phases. From what he said, it appears it would make sense to allow Mr. Wood to start work on the third phase. Mr. Martin said he does not have all the information to make that decision. The only way for Mr. Wood to have the conditions changed is to go to the Planning Commission and the Board for an amendment. That would put his construction way into the summer months. Mr. Wood asked Mr. Martin to see if the request could be put on the agenda for April. Mr. Bowerman asked if staff can be provided with enough information so the Board knows the implications. Mr. Martin said ~'yes." Mr. Tucker said this is an amendment to a condition in the zoning Mr. Wood has, so it has to go through the Commission and then to the Board. Mr. Wood has missed some filing deadline, and the hearing now would put it into May or later. Since, it is an amendment, staff would not have to do a complete new staff report. He said Ms. McCulley is present and might be able to add to the discussion. Mr. Martin said he did not want to get into a long discussion today. What he is asking is that the Board get the information so it can make a decision. He has only heard one side of the story. He knows there are some housekeeping issues that need to be taken care of by Mr. Wood before the Board even discusses the request. Mr. Tucker said the request has to go through a normal advertising process in order to get the information to the Board. It is not just a matter of bringing the information to the Board. If the Board is going to take any action, in order for it to be legally correct, it has to go through an advertising process and the Planning Commission Mr. Bowerman said he thought Mr. Martin was asking for the information so the Board could look at it and decide whether the Board should even consider changing the sequence. Ms. Thomas asked if the Board would listen to Ms. McCulley in case this is something it does not want to consider. Mr. Bowerman asked what the housekeeping items are that Mr. Martin referred to. Ms. McCulley said she has a five-page letter. Mr. Wood has about six more house sites and is trying to sign contracts to have more deliverables. There are several things related to roads and a condition that requires two things: 1) he is not to be working in more than two phases at one time, so he has two different proposals before the County now. One is a townhouse site plan, and the other is for another section of single-family lots. Then there are two other sections which have not been finished yet. He has to finish one of those two to be able to begin on this new section. He has several roads where the work is not complete so they can get into the State system. These are some of the same conditions imposed when he was before the Board in 1991. Those are internal neighborhood roads. He also has some work on Austin Drive and bonding is needed on Briarwood Drive, and finish work for the relocation of Route 606 in order for the permit to be approved. There are some minor erosion control measures which are not completed. The recreation area is not completed. 000 .?? March 13, 1995 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 35) Mr. Bowerman asked if these things could be done prior to a public hearing. Mr. Martin said he told Mr. Wood that those things needed to be dealt with prior to the Board meeting. Mr. Davis said if those things could be completed, Mr. Wood would not need anything from the Board because he could then just go on to another section. Mr. Martin said that is why he said he had only heard one side of the story. Ms. McCulley said staff is trying to give Mr. Wood the benefit of the doubt. Instead of saying the roads have to be absolutely completed to the point of adoption of a resolution, staff has asked that the roads be completed to the point of all the physical work being completed so the bond can be released, and all the legal work and the paper work is submitted and is in the proper office for the 45-day wait to begin. Staff is also accepting a bond for the redesign of the road rather than waiting for a redesign of the road first as a compromise. Mr. Thomas said it does not sound like the Board needs to do anything if Mr. Wood meets his responsibilities. Ms. McCulley said Mr. Wood does not believe he will be able to meet these responsibilities within the time line he needs to begin to sign contracts, and to begin building the houses. Ms. Thomas said she felt there was beginning to be a consensus that the Board did not want to meet with Mr. Wood until he had met his obligations. Mr. Martin said he told Mr. Wood the Board would discuss his request. He told him that he needed to take care of the issues in the five-page letter before that meeting. He did not have the authority to tell him that. He only wants to get the request before the Board in a reasonable time frame so the Board can then make a decision. He is not trying to convince anyone to make a change. Ms. Thomas asked if the Board is putting the staff to a great deal of trouble to get the Board to a point where it can review a situation in which someone has not met his obligations, and the Board would be unlikely to allow him to proceed until he had met his obligations. She does not see why the Board would use staff time and effort to do that. Mr. Martin said he under- stands staff is already involved. Ms. Humphris asked if Ms. McCulley had said these conditions had existed since 1991 and still have not been cleared up. Ms. McCulley said that is correct. The conditions on the zoning were placed on the zoning in 1991 and he has moved forward with development, but some of the details of completing roads and erosion control measures are not completed. He has gotten no more roads taken into the State system than were ready t° be in the State system at that point. Ms. Humphris said this is more than four years later and now, all of a sudden, the Board is being asked to expedite a change. Ms. McCulley said there was a deadline for submittals on February 27. These applications are accepted every two months, so he just missed that date. Mr. Cilimberg said he would have to wait and apply on the next date in April under the rezoning schedule. To get this request before the Board by the middle of April may be very difficult. Setting a Planning Commission hearing, getting a report completed, advertising and getting it to the Board in April may be almost impossible at this date. Mr. Perkins said it does not seem there is anything the Board can do at this time. Mr. Martin said he had a constituent who made a request of him, and he has made the. request of this Board. Mr. Cilimberg said staff will do every- thing it can to get the request to the Board, but he is not sure of the date. Mr. Bowerman said he does not know the circumstances, but if there were things that could have been done during the last couple of years, and they are still not done, looking to this Board to not consider that, and continuing to waive that, does not make a lot of sense. Mr. Martin said he is not going to advocate. Basically, he made a request which seemed to be a fairly reasonable request because there would be no decision made, and it could be a means of getting things done. The only thing the Board would be doing is scheduling a meeting to look at the possi- bility. He is not advocating for a decision one way or the other. Mr. Tucker asked the next date the plan could get to the Commission. Mr. Cilimberg said if staff had something in hand, they could try for April 18 Supervisors March 13, 1995 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 36) 0O0::[?8 for the Commission. The next regular schedule for submittals for rezonings would not have it coming in until April 24, and it would not get to the Commission until June 6. If the Board wanted to pursue something on the special use permit schedule, which is very similar, those applications are accepted every month. March 27 is the next submittal date and the Commission could hear the request on May 9. Mr. Bowerman said if consideration is being asked for and there is enough time to do stuff, a positive decision would be predicated on getting a lot of the unresolved matters resolved prior to the time of reviewing it, or otherwise there is not be much likelihood it will be granted. Mr. Martin said he agreed. That is the first thing he told Mr. Wood. Mr. Bowerman said if it could be used as a deadline to get something done, that would be good. Ms. Humphris said Mr. Davis had pointed out that if he is going to conform there is no reason for him to come, so why doesn't he just conform? Mr. Martin said he thinks there is more to finishing up the phases than just conforming. He does not know why Mr. Wood would have asked him to do this if the only issue was just conforming. Ms. McCulley said the second half of the agreement that relates to the chronology of development is something he would like to have amended regard- less of what happens with the requirement that he be in no more than two phases of development at one time. He does want to rearrange the order of development. Ms. Humphris asked if staff will present the Board with information about why that agreement was set forth in the first place. Mr. Bowerman said he will say right now that the reason it was put into place was to avoid just this type of "circuitousness." Mr. Cilimberg said every time there is a request to make a change in schedules staff just ends up in some sort of pressure situation. If the request is submitted on the special use permit schedule, it will give staff the time it needs to get the historical informa- tion, advertise, etc. Mr. Perkins suggested that Mr. Wood be advised to submit his application on the special use permit schedule. Mr. Marshall said if anyone Wants to go to Covesville to look at the site for the ballfield, he will be able to take them early Wednesday morning. Ms. Thomas said she would like to go. Mr. Davis reminded the members that not more than two members should go at one time because, by Code, three members constitute a legal meeting. Agenda Item No. 4. Adjourn to March 15, 1995, 1:00 p.m. At 5:24 p.m., with no further business to come before the Board, motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to adjourn this meeting until March 15, 1995, at 1:00 p.m. for a budget work session. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Ms. Humphris. NAYS: None. Chairman ,,L/