Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-10-12October 12, 2010 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 1) An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on October 12, 2010, at 9:00 a.m., Room 241, Second Floor, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. This meeting was adjourned from October 6, 2010. PRESENT: Mr. Kenneth C. Boyd, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr. (arrived at 9:06 a.m.), Ms. Ann Mallek, Mr. Dennis S. Rooker, Mr. Duane E. Snow and Mr. Rodney S. Thomas. ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Assistant County Executive, Thomas Foley, Assistant County Executive, Bryan Elliott, County Attorney, Larry W. Davis, and Clerk, Ella W. Jordan. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:00 a.m., by the Chair, Ms. Mallek. _______________ Agenda Item No. 2. Work Session: Local government base line budget review and future funding needs. Ms. Mallek said the desired outcomes of this meeting are to increase the Board’s understanding about the budget development and process and to increase the Board’s understanding of short and long range issues facing General Government. Mr. Tucker said that Mr. Foley would begin the meeting by defining and providing some background on today’s agenda. Mr. Elliott will then introduce the two departments - Parks and Recreation and Police - who would provide an overview of how they build their budgets. Ms. Allshouse will then review some essential core services needs and Mr. Elliott will speak about emerging critical needs. Mr. Tucker said that he would conclude by providing some long-range issues. Mr. Foley explained that the preliminary five-year plan review indicates that this planning process has been expanded. An organization like County government is not repositioned by just looking at an annual budget. It must be done through a multi-year view. He said that this year, staff has done much more preliminary work, beginning with the Board’s June retreat and the interviews staff has done with Board members on priorities and new directions. Mr. Foley noted that tomorrow the Board would be meeting with the School Board to take the process a step further. The objectives of this process are to increase the Board’s understanding of County expenditures and the budget development process. Those objectives will be accomplished by: 1) a recap of previous reductions and repositioning efforts; 2) a close examination of two local government department budgets; and 3) Program and Service Inventory – all local government program and service expenditures – this will be provided in November. Mr. Foley emphasized that the primary objective is to achieve transparency and accountability, with the second objective being a focus on short-term and emerging priority issues identified by the Leadership Council. He stated that Mr. Tucker would then discuss the longer-term quality of life issues that have been impacted by reduced revenues, such as prevention programs, environmental stewardship, and dedicated capital items. Mr. Foley clarified that staff is not expecting any financial decisions from the Board today, but just wants to create awareness about issues on the horizon that are of concern, which will need to be kept in mind during the five-year plan process. He said that the Schools would take the same approach with the Board tomorrow. Hopefully the entire process will help the Board in their multi-year decisions. Mr. Foley reported that the County has made meaningful and proactive reductions over the last several years, with meaningful referring to the level of reductions and proactive referring to the nature of those cuts, such as reallocating staff instead of laying them off. He stated that there has been a $40.0 million reduction, or 12%, in the County operating budget since FY09, with funding reductions hitting every area of local government including public safety and human services. Mr. Foley noted that the County is at FY02 per-capita levels for staffing, with 75 positions being eliminated, frozen, or offset by other revenue sources. He added that all but about five of those positions have been completely eliminated, with no funding currently or planned for the near future. Mr. Foley reported that there has been a $160.0 million reduction in the five-year capital program since FY08, with a minimum level of maintenance on existing projects. He noted that there are minimal new facilities in the next five years, with a few minor sidewalk projects and the Crozet streetscape project being completed. Mr. Foley stated that staff has also looked at efficiencies with an effort to be creative in moving forward. He reported that the County has done aggressive reallocation of staffing, extensive retraining, moved people from one department to another, from enhanced positions to core-level positions. At the same time, he said, the Board has had priorities in economic development and the revalidation program. Mr. Foley said that consolidation of project management services is another example of this downsizing, and the entire County government has continued to have operational scrutiny with expenditures. He noted that they have privatized custodial operations and have reduced usage of electricity and other utilities by improving energy management, as well as implementing a new fleet-management program that will eliminate the need to replace vehicles. Staff is also conducting a thorough review of the health care program to look for additional savings opportunities. Regarding revenue creation, Mr. Foley reported that tourism funds have been moved from enhanced programs to the core - maintaining parks and recreation programs. He said that they now fund project managers out of the Capital Fund instead of the General Fund, so staffing levels will fluctuate October 12, 2010 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 2) depending on the load being carried. Mr. Foley noted that the County has secured some grants over the past several years and has developed an entirely new grant-monitoring process. He said that there has been revenue generated from the Business Auditor position, as well as the EMS cost-recovery program and some fee increases. Mr. Foley emphasized that County departments have fostered partnerships on how to get work done differently and improve the way things are done, such as the Visitor’s Center downstairs, which was temporarily closed but is now staffed through a partnership with the Charlottesville Convention and Visitors Bureau. Mr. Elliott said that the feedback the Board gave in their one-on-one interviews with Ms. Lori Allshouse and Ms. Lee Catlin that provided the background for their June strategic planning session indicated that Board members desired more information about how the County Executive’s budget is formulated, increased involvement by department heads in presenting the information, increased emphasis on comparisons with peer jurisdictions, and assurances that core services are protected to the greatest extent possible. Mr. Elliott stated that staff chose Parks and Recreation and Police as examples because of the differences in their operating budgets and missions. Parks and Recreation’s operating budget is a little more than $2.5 million and the Police Department’s operating budget is approximately $12.0 million. The missions of these two departments are different, core public service and then quality of life for parks and recreation, but both provide services that enhance the welfare of citizens. Mr. Elliott then introduced the Parks and Recreation Director, Mr. Pat Mullaney and Interim Chief of Police, Mr. John Parrent, who would provide briefings on their respective departments, offer key considerations they utilize in the development of their budgets, and will submit data on peer communities regarding per-capita spending. Mr. Elliott noted that they would also report on funding and operating issues that are creating some challenges for the present and the future. Mr. Mullaney said that what he is presenting is the actual FY10-11 budget and what can be achieved with that. He stated that the total expenditures for Parks and Recreation are approximately $2,355,590, including the County’s share of Darden Towe Park, which is about $157,000. He noted that Darden Towe Park is a separate entity within their budget, separated from the Parks and Recreation budget. Mr. Mullaney said that total revenues from fees total about $330,245, with 21 total full-time employees including the three employees at Towe. He stated that like most Parks Departments, they have a large number of part-time employees, with hours totaling approximately 36,000 for 118 employees in FY10-11 at a total cost of $351,000. Mr. Mullaney said that the County has reduced this area of expense by 25% since 2005, or a $94,000 reduction in part-time staffing costs. He reported that the County has approximately 3,300 total park acres at seven County regional parks, two City-County regional parks, four community parks, three community centers, two river access sites, and 24 segments of greenway not always contiguous. Mr. Dorrier asked if that number excludes Biscuit Run. Mr. Mullaney replied, “yes”, that excludes Biscuit Run. Mr. Mullaney stated that he did some peer county comparisons, but it is difficult to compare parks and recreation departments because nothing is mandated. He said that to the extent a comparison can be made, Albemarle compares very favorably, with the lowest number of full-time employees, 21 when compared to Spotsylvania at 23 and Fauquier at 24. The other counties are significantly higher. Mr. Mullaney stated that annual operating budget expenses per-capita (net after deducting revenues for fees) in FY10-11 are $20.10 for Spotsylvania, $21.26 for Albemarle, and the rest being significantly higher. He added that the City of Charlottesville expense is $168.84, but noted that it is not unusual for a city to have a higher per-capita cost. Mr. Mullaney mentioned that Albemarle’s FY09-10 actual expenditures were $19.38 per capita. Over the past five years this department has averaged a 5% return back to the General Fund. He reported that Albemarle has more than double the number of park acres, 3,300, than the nearest locality, with Spotsylvania having the lowest at around 600. Mr. Rooker suggested that a per-capita per-acre rate might provide a clearer comparison. Mr. Mullaney said that Albemarle has 34.7 park acres per capita, with Spotsylvania at 4.9. This does not include state parks or Towe Park. He stated the County is in very good shape for the future with total park acres. Mr. Mullaney added that Albemarle has a unique system in its total park acres, the nature and character of its parks, such as swimming beaches, and several parks approaching the minimum size of a state park, 600 acres. Mr. Mullaney noted that the County is also unique in the number of partnerships it has. In 2004 they did a benchmarking study against peer Virginia counties and best practices counties throughout the U.S. which showed that Albemarle was best in class for per-capita park acres and the number of partnerships form ed. He said that it is these partnerships that have helped hold the cost per capita down and the citizens are relatively satisfied with their services. The partnership with the Schools started in 1978 with recreation programs at the schools and capital improvements on school grounds to build a network of close-to-home community recreation opportunities. Mr. Mullaney pointed out that these facilities give another 750 acres that are not included in the 3,300 total. He said that with partnership facilities included, Albemarle rated at or near the top with peer localities in best practice localities for these types of facilities. Mr. Mullaney commented that budgets tend to evolve over the years because when facilities and programs are added, staff is added along with maintenance, utility, repair and supply costs. He said that in the 1970s, Parks and Recreation had parks totaling 1,200 acres with six Parks employees working under the County Executive. He noted that Mr. Bob Crickenberger and Mr. Matt Smith were two of those six employees. Mr. Mullaney said that Parks and Recreation became a full-time department in 1977, when a director and secretary were hired; there is still only one secretary on staff. He stated that when he October 12, 2010 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 3) came on in 1978, the Department began recreation programming and started its relationship with the schools. Mr. Mullaney presented information on how the park system has grown over the years, including all of the costs that go along with adding facilities. He reported that there are seven divisions within their regular budget, with expenditures of about $2.2 million and fee revenues of approximately $330,000. He noted that the Greenway Division was eliminated in FY10-11, redirecting the tourism funds that supported it to allow for a $573,000 offset for Parks Maintenance operations. Mr. Mullaney reported that the first division in the budget is Administration, which provides support to all divisions in the department by paying bills, maintaining leave records and providing other human resources needs, scheduling park facilities, program registrations, performing fee collection and deposit; oversees day to day operations, develops and oversees the capital and operating budgets, performs strategic planning, partnership development, KPI, and tracking. He said that there are three full-time employees in the Administration Division, the Director, Assistant Director and Office Associate. He added this is one of just a few Parks and Recreation departments of notable size that has just one clerical person. Mr. Mullaney stated that the Division is 95% salaries and benefits, with remaining line items dictated in the budget manual or based on previous actual expenditures. Mr. Mullaney reported that the next division is Maintenance, which is responsible for maintaining all parks, community centers, greenway trails, park athletic fields and selected school fields, and for supervising over 3,300 acres of parkland while maintaining 487 developed park and school acres at 30 different sites around the County, including 43 athletic fields and 43 trail miles. Mr. Mullaney noted that this division also provides playground safety inspections for all County schools and parks and provides the primary labor force in inclement weather emergencies in support of the departments of General Services and Police. He said that the division also recruits, trains and supervises volunteers in the maintenance of County parks and trails. Mr. Mullaney noted that this is the largest division in the budget, making up half of total expenditures, including 13 of the 18 full-time employees. Mr. Mullaney explained that Personnel is 70% of the Parks and Recreation budget, with contract building repair and contract power equipment repair because they are major repairs the department cannot handle in-house. When he budgets those types of expenses he does not use past 12 month or previous year actual, instead he looks at a 3-5 year average. Other significant costs include contract refuse (dumpster services at parks), utilities, and supplies comprising additional expenses (carpentry, plumbing, dirt, gravel). He said that repair and maintenance, which includes supplies used every day, generate a lot of small bills for the one clerical person. Mr. Mullaney stated that the next significant expense is for vehicle equipment and fuel, as there are 30 different sites they maintain, but they have reduced this cost by 20% since 2008 with some reorganization. He noted that vehicle and equipment repairs include repairs to vehicles at the County bus shop and any maintenance they do themselves. Mr. Mullaney explained that there are 68 items in the Parks and Recreation inventory that are valued over $5,000, such as trucks, trailers, tractors and mowers. He added the Department does a five- year capital replacement plan to spread those costs out. He said that half of the $51,000 for FY10-11 is the County’s Vehicle Replacement Fund, as determined by the County Budget office, and the rest of it is for four smaller capital replacement items. Mr. Mullaney mentioned that in FY10-11, funding for the Howardsville boat launch was eliminated, which was about $25,000. Mr. Rooker asked if the state has taken it over. Mr. Mullaney replied that they have not as of yet, but they do own it. Mr. Mullaney presented a map of how staff is distributed, including parks and community centers, public athletic fields, workshops at Chris Greene Lake, Walnut Creek, and Mint Springs, with a Park Foreman and two maintenance workers at each shop who maintain all facilities in their region. He said that the Foreman is in charge but does the same work as the other staff. Mr. Mullaney mentioned that in 2008 the Department had one Foreman and one maintenance worker at each shop who would take care of just the park facilities, with a four-person crew specializing in athletic fields who traveled the entire County. Mr. Mullaney stated that when they lost the Foreman at Walnut Creek, one person was left in the region so they ended up combining crews. He said that it has worked out well for the Department and has resulted in savings of fuel and manpower hours. Mr. Mullaney reported that in a seven-day period the western and northern crews have 116 hours and the southern crew has 114 hours, which does not reflect work done on the 43 miles of nature trails, supply pick up, breakdowns or vandalism, planning or training. He added that the Department is also planning to absorb Preddy and Byrum into the park system, and the key to doing that will be personnel. Mr. Mullaney also said that the inmate workforce foreman oversees an inmate team that provides approximately 4,600 hours of free labor, with work orders given from all different regions and the staff in the office. He added that the outdoor recreation supervisor, who is in charge of volunteer recruitment, helps provide another 5,500 hours of labor, mainly for trails. The trail maintenance supervisor does maintenance on the 43 miles of trail himself unless it is something requiring inmate or volunteer help. Mr. Mullaney mentioned that the Department has also been able to use the inmate workforce for park enhancement, including re-decking all of the docks at Chris Greene, which had a contract estimate of $32,000. He said that the total cost for the supervision and coordination of using the inmate workforce was $8,000. Mr. Mullaney stated that if the inmate program could be enhanced and used on a daily basis, the Department could be reorganized and more work could be accomplished. Mr. Rooker asked what needs to be done in order to expand that program. Mr. Mullaney responded that what Sheriff Harding is doing should accomplish that, with the use of incentives targeting a certain subset of the prison population. He said that the plan is to help the inmates work off some of their fines. October 12, 2010 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 4) Mr. Tucker stated that the issue has been convincing the judges that this is a good thing for the inmates as well as the community. Mr. Mullaney said that the ones who are participating now want to participate. Ms. Mallek asked if there are statutory changes needed to make this happen. Mr. Tucker and Mr. Mullaney responded that there are not, and Sheriff Harding is very likely going to make this happen. Mr. Rooker said the Board supports this program and is willing to also work to make it happen. Mr. Mullaney reported that the next division within the budget is the Summer Swim Program, which provides lifeguard supervision, swimming instruction and fee collection at Chris Greene, Walnut Creek and Mint Springs. He said that total beach attendance is about 45,000, with instruction provided to approximately 100 swimmers per year. Mr. Mullaney stated that the Department tries to maintain a ratio of 1:20 lifeguard to swimmer supervision at all times the beaches are open. This budget is 92% salaries with other costs based on previous actual. He said that over the past two years they have cut part-time hours by 4,800 and have maintained fairly steady attendance, improving cost recovery from 70% to 88% in FY10. Not included in the costs presented is Recreation Program Supervisor, Ms. Amy Smith’s time, which is about 30% of her time. Mr. Mullaney noted that her entire salary and benefits are funded in the team division. He reported that the Athletics and Class Division is responsible for departmental support for 32 different nonprofit youth and athletic program providers serving 10,000 participants, which is accomplished by performing an annual athletic field needs survey and scheduling over 35,000 hours of field reservations annually on 47 multi-purpose fields and 43 baseball fields. Mr. Mullaney said that they also assist the School Division in the scheduling of 27 school gymnasiums. This Division is also responsible for providing self-sustaining athletic programs, classes and camps for over 3,000 participants annually. He stated that this Division also provides funding for the County’s share of the McIntire Skate Park and is based on the previous year’s use by 4,140 County residents, which was 45% of the total use. In FY10-11, he said, the Department has eliminated the Scottsville basketball gym supervisor, the Yancey open gym supervisor, Shape-Up for Seniors, the Lane field lights, and some porta-johns at some County athletic fields, which resulted in $17,000 in cuts to this division. Mr. Mullaney noted that there is one full-time employee’s salary in this division, Mr. Tim Hughes, the Program Supervisor for Athletics, who serves as liaison with all the youth sports groups but also performs various other roles within the Department. He stated that the other big ticket items in this Division are contracts for class instructors, referees, and the payment to the City for the skate park. Mr. Mullaney said that other than Mr. Hughes’ salary and the skate park, the remaining costs are recovered in program fees. He added that Ms. Smith spends about 25% of her time supervising the self-sustaining fee-based classes and programs. Mr. Mullaney said, if something is not working they offer something else. He added that the key in this Division is if they are running a class or a program and they do not get enough people registered to pay the instructor’s salary, they just cancel it. He confirmed that in most cases, there is money made or a break-even point with each class. Mr. Mullaney reported that the next division is the Community Center Division, which funds the operation of the Greenwood Community Center and Scottsville Community Center as well as supervising the after-hours use of the Meadows Community Center, which is now leased during the daytime by the Jordan Development Corporation. He said that the community centers provide space for 1,500+ different building reservations each year and a variety of recreational and social activities. Mr. Mullaney reported that in the FY10-11 budget, the Department eliminated funding for the Meadows, with costs now covered through a lease arrangement with Jordan. They talked about closing Scottsville, but the Board restored those funds. He said that Mr. Tim Hughes spends about 15% of his time supervising this division. Other costs include part-time center personnel, contract building repairs, and almost $30,000 for utilities such as heat and electric. Mr. Mullaney noted that they are working with Ms. Sarah Temple on an energy audit of the buildings to see if there may be some efficiencies that could help reduce the utility costs. He said that the revenue figures presented here are low, as the department got more aggressive with their pricing, with actual FY09-10 revenues coming in at $22,000. He reported that the next division is the Special Activities Division, which provides the four-week summer playground program for ages 6-13 at ten schools and locations in Crozet Park, serving 500 children annually and coordinated closely with the Summer School Program. Mr. Mullaney said that the children go to class in the morning then park activities in the afternoon. Many of these kids would not be able to make summer school if it were not aligned with the Summer School Programs. Mr. Boyd asked how this aligns with the YMCA and Boys & Girls Club activities. Mr. Mullaney responded that the YMCA program covers other schools and is more expensive. He said that the key to their program is that it is extremely affordable and it is held at the schools where the Summer School Programs are held and runs in conjunction with those hours. Ms. Mallek pointed out that the YMCA has wanted to run a 10-week program at Crozet Park, and money is being raised to get that facility improved so it can accommodate that. Mr. Boyd said that he would like to see the cost burden shifted to some of these other community organizations. October 12, 2010 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 5) Mr. Mullaney reported that this division also funds the County’s share of the Therapeutic Recreation Program that the City runs, which serves 3,300 County residents, many of whom have severe disabilities. He said that County residents comprise 39% of the program participants. Mr. Mullaney stated that in FY10-11, Parks and Recreation reduced the summer program cost by $10,000 by eliminating funding for mobile tennis and field trips to the lake. Over the years this has been reduced from an eight-week program to a four-week program. He said that 95% of the cost is personnel, and 1:10 supervision is provided. Ms. Smith also spends about 5% of her time supervising this division. Mr. Mullaney stated that Mr. Mark Wilson, who has been with Parks and Recreation for many years, can serve almost as a full-time employee would. He added that between Mr. Wilson and Ms. Smith, Mr. Bob Crickenberger nor himself have not had to field a complaint on this program, probably in the last three years. Ms. Mallek commented that the end of year picnic at Penn Park for the Therapeutic Program is amazing, and participants get a lot out of it. Mr. Mullaney responded that he hopes the Board will always fund this program fully, and if that funding is removed the cost recovery is about one-third because of a conscious decision the Department made to run the program in conjunction with the schools, as many of the students are on scholarship. He said that the other wild card in this Division is with the summer playground, as it is never known how many participants will have special needs and require one to one supervision. He added that they have to be flexible enough to find the money in their budget, if not in special activities, somewhere else when that occurs. Mr. Mullaney presented information on the County cost and number of participants in the Therapeutic Program run by Ms. Mildred Spicer, adding that it would be much more expensive if the County were to try to go it alone and run its own program. Mr. Mullaney reported that the final division in Parks and Recreation budget is Teen Programs which provides for middle school after-school sports programs run at every County middle school from 4:00 p.m.-6:00 p.m. Monday through Thursday throughout the school year. He stated that the program includes basketball in the fall, volleyball in the winter, and track in the spring, providing a competitive athletic experience for all skill levels between schools. Mr. Mullaney noted that the program serves over 1,000 participants annually and has one full-time employee, Ms. Smith, who spends about 40% of her time supervising this division. He said that about $50,000 of personnel costs is for middle school coaches, with the other significant costs being supply costs such as T-shirts with the schools’ names printed on them. Mr. Mullaney emphasized that for many of these kids, this is the only chance they will get to represent their school in an athletic activity because when they get to high school only those in the top of the program are likely to participate. He stated that if Ms. Smith’s salary was moved off of this program, the Department would have about a 56% cost recovery. Mr. Mullaney stated that the Department has been trying to make this program self-sustaining and has raised fees each year, but last year there was an 8% decline in attendance and an overall decline in fee-based program participation. He added raising fees is not always the answer to increasing revenue. He thinks that in this tough economy they have to be really mindful about when they raise fees, it is the people in the middle really having to make tough decisions. Ms. Mallek added that parents often face transportation barriers when their jobs change. Mr. Mullaney mentioned that every few years someone will suggest establishing a teen center, but the facilities often end up being placed in an area that makes it difficult for kids to get there. He stated that when the County departed from the teen center concept, they began to put the programs at the schools right were the kids were and it caught on immediately. Mr. Mullaney noted that this is a tough age group to get involved in activities, but the program has worked really well. He reported that Darden Towe Park is the last item in the Parks and Recreation budget, with the park being a 113-acre City/County regional park administered by the County, with the largest and most heavily used complex of athletic fields in the City and County. Mr. Mullaney explained that the park provides four full-size high-level maintenance multi-purpose fields used approximately 10,000 hours per year from March through November, three tournament quality softball fields used extensively during the week for the City softball program, and serves as the primary site for weekend tournament play. He stated that other facilities include one little league field, four tennis courts, one picnic shelter, boat launch, greenway trail and a dog park. Mr. Mullaney noted that the little league field also includes a cricket pitch and because of the field’s heavy use it requires seven day a week maintenance attention. He said that Darden Towe is a separate entry in the budget and is funded by the County, City, and other revenue sources such as program fees. Mr. Mullaney said that the County’s share of the Park is 69.55% with the City’s share being 30.45% based on population, after revenues are deducted. He stated that there are three full-time employees at the Park, and in FY2007-08 that staff was voluntarily reduced by one employee. Mr. Mullaney said that the savings realized was assigned to higher, more efficient mowing equipment as well as abandoning a time-consuming daily sticker count to assess City/County usage. He stated that the budget for the Park is about $245,000, which is basically for maintenance but also includes audit and administrative fees. Mr. Mullaney confirmed that the employees there are County employees. Mr. Dorrier asked what the County’s plans are for dealing with the Lewis and Clark Exploratory Center. Mr. Mullaney replied that the County has a lease agreement with the Center, and they are in a part of the park that does not impact the rest. He noted that the Center only pays about $10 a year to the County for that space. October 12, 2010 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 6) Mr. Mullaney explained that revenue sources for Darden Towe include rent from a tenant house onsite, with that tenant doing about 50 hours of work per month and saves the cost of opening and closing gates. He stated that there is an underground communications line that provides some revenue for the park, and recreation fees such as softball tournament fees also bring in some income, with other fees being split by the City and County. Mr. Mullaney noted that in March 2010 the Department requested a quote from a private contractor on routine ground maintenance of the park, which did not include field lining, goal moving or field reorientation, restroom or parking lot cleaning, shelter preparation, facility repairs, utility costs, snow removal, park supervision or costs associated with special requests, and that quote was $255,000. He added that they believe that they run a pretty efficient operation. Mr. Mullaney noted that the County cost is actually $156,000, and every quarter he bills both the City and the County. Mr. Mullaney commented that he considers himself to be a fiscal conservative, and he likes the fact that his Department balances the highest level of service with fiscal responsibility, adding that he believes all County departments do that. He said that the County’s mission statement also mentions enhancing well-being and the quality of life for all citizens, and to do that a balance in services must be achieved. Mr. Mullaney asked the Board to keep this balance in mind, as it is as important to have parks and recreation and libraries, etc. just as it is to have critical core services. Mr. Rooker pointed out that many people will only experience use of those core services once in their lifetime, such as the fire department, whereas they use other services on a regular basis. Mr. Mullaney said that in the recent random survey, 75% of citizens indicated that they visited a County park over the last year. Ms. Mallek added that in economic times like this, people cut back on their private investments in recreation and go to the parks instead. She asked if the County had considered using purchasing cards for small items instead of having staff spend time on billing reimbursement. Mr. Tucker said that Mr. Foley would be able to address that point in future discussions as part of Access Albemarle. Mr. Boyd asked if the cost by park had ever been evaluated, including maintenance costs. Mr. Mullaney responded that the Department has not done that but certainly could. Mr. Boyd also asked about grant money for income. Mr. Mullaney replied that they have received grants for capital projects, but not for operations. Mr. Boyd asked if the County had ever considered building larger multi-use recreational facilities rather than having many separate ones. Mr. Mullaney responded that that would be the ideal situation, but when land is proffered it is usually what no one else wants, such as floodplains, etc. He emphasized that this area needs another Darden Towe Park or possibly two. Mr. Boyd said that while the funding is not there to build that now, he wondered if the distributive use of schools might need to be rethought at some point. Mr. Mullaney said he does not think you ever want to rethink the process of maximizing the use of your facilities. The schools serve a different service. There is a practice need and a game need. He emphasized that the schools are located conveniently to the neighborhoods and communities that use those facilities for practice with the larger fields used for competition. He added that he thinks it needs to be a combination. Mr. Elliott commented that Mr. Mullaney is retiring at the end of this year and under his leadership he has helped craft and guide the County to a very high level of parks and recreation facilities. He thanked Mr. Mullaney for all his work and service. __________ Mr. Elliott said they would now proceed to the Police Department’s budget. Present were Mr. John Parrent and Ms. Nicole Marshall. Mr. Parrent said that the objectives of his presentation are to: 1) provide an overview of Police Department programs and services; 2) discuss staffing levels, peer comparisons and performance indicators; 3) offer insights to how the annual budget is prepared; and 4) inform Board of current operating issues and challenges. The Police Department is authorized for 118 sworn officers but currently has 114, with recruitment efforts to fill those, and five frozen positions that would ultimately bring staffing levels to 123. He presented an organizational chart, noting eliminated and vacant areas. Mr. Parrent stated that the backbone of their agency is patrol, which the public sees most often, and that area must remain healthy in order to respond to service calls and to ensure officer safety. He reported that several years ago the department noticed a real deficit in patrol, but without adequate funding for new positions they instead took their neighborhood resource unit and moved it over to patrol. Mr. Parrent said that there were some civilian positions frozen when the County made cuts, and the Department also took some officer positions and moved them to patrol. He stated that they have lost some positions in the Traffic Division, and there is no longer a School Resource Officer for the middle schools, with all of those positions being funneled to patrol. Mr. Parrent mentioned that several years ago they had a strong neighborhood resource unit and strong community policing philosophy, and there would be some holes as a result of retirements. Mr. Parrent reported that the Comprehensive Plan has a service objective of 1.5 officers per 1000, and currently the department has a 1.17 to 1,000 ratio. If they were fully staffed at 118, he said, the level would be 1.24; with 123 staff the level would be 1.29, which is certainly well short of their goal, which would require 143 officers. He explained that the rationale for that 1.5 standard is to ensure there is sufficient staff on the street to answer emergency calls while ensuring officer safety while they are October 12, 2010 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 7) responding. He added that they feel that the 1.5 represents the proper number of those officers on the street as well as the support for the specialized programs they need in investigations and community policing. Mr. Rooker commented that it would take another $2.0 million per year to reach that level. Mr. Parrent agreed. Mr. Parrent said that in 2000 there was progress made toward the 1.5 goal, but when the economy collapsed there was a drop and now the County is moving even further away from that goal. He presented information on how the goal could be achieved in the next several years, with the most aggressive approach being adding six officers per year, which would help meet the goal by 2018. Mr. Parrent stated that adding four officers would put the County in the middle, and two officers would keep the status quo. Mr. Snow noted that Mr. Parrent had mentioned four positions that were un-staffed but funded, and asked if there was difficulty finding qualified people. Mr. Parrent replied, “yes”. Mr. Snow also asked if the four officers would influence the information presented. Mr. Parrent said that this would essentially meet the full-staffing level of 118, which would bring the level to 1.24 per 1,000. Mr. Parrent said that when compared to peer localities, Albemarle ranks at the bottom in staffing ratio. He noted that Spotsylvania is the only county in the group that has a higher crime rate. He added that even Hanover has a lower crime rate than Albemarle does per population. Mr. Boyd asked if that was all crimes or just serious crimes. Mr. Parrent replied that those are serious or Group A crimes. Mr. Parrent stated that using more of a regional comparison other cities have a higher crime rate than Albemarle. He added that if you look at Charlottesville, they have half the population of Albemarle but they have the same number of officers. Mr. Tucker added that Charlottesville is covering a much smaller area. Ms. Mallek asked Mr. Parrent if he would attribute the lower crime rates in the more rural counties to the larger staff, and asked if there was more prevention going on. Mr. Parrent responded “yes”; it is the preventative programs that are keeping that rate down, as well as the proactive involvement of the officers on the street as they spend more time in the community. Mr. Parrent said that the County covers 720 square miles, with several developed areas and some vastly rural areas. Mr. Parrent stated that in 2004 the Department did an in-house workload allocation study and redesigned how the sectors and beats are developed, based on calls for service, population density, response times, and several other factors. He said that the hope was to have each of the 21 beats filled with an officer, which they have not been able to do, so they have instead focused on filling the sectors. Mr. Parrent illustrated the distance that an officer would have to travel from one end of the region to the other, noting that an emergency call in Crozet would get quick response from that sector’s assigned officer, but his backup could be coming from a long distance away. He added that even though certain areas are considered development areas, they are not probably going to be getting the response time that somebody would see up in the quadrant near the urban area. He added that with emergency calls near the urban area, people would like to have officer response within five minutes or less, and in the Crozet area the standard is 10 minutes or less. Mr. Parrent said that if an officer calls for help in a more remote area, it may be over 10 minutes before another officer arrives. He mentioned that there were some officers assaulted in the southern quadrant over the weekend. Mr. Rooker mentioned that last night when he pulled out of his office in Sachem Place there was someone pulled off the road and four police cars around her. That seems to be a huge amount of backup. Mr. Parrent said that it is good to have those additional units in the development area, but they are often tied up because it is a busy area. Mr. Dorrier asked if the County has mutual aid agreements with neighboring localities. Mr. Parrent replied “yes” there are agreements with surrounding counties, the City and the University. Ms. Mallek mentioned that if there is an alarm that goes off at a house, the police must send two people because it is considered a high risk situation. Mr. Parrent replied “yes” although most of the alarms are false alarms which is supposed to be addressed in the future. Mr. Parrent then presented information that showed 11 officers on duty in daylight, 11 in the evening, and 9 on midnight shift, not counting the sergeant or the corporal that run the Department. Mr. Parrent said that while midnight tends to be slow, an officer wants to be more proactive because this is when burglaries happen and domestic disputes or disorders can often leave an officer by himself in one area. He confirmed that there is no time during the day when every sector is covered, adding that with daylight assignments officers often have court time. Mr. Parrent reported that the other objective in the Comp Plan is improved response times, with the goal in the development area of five minutes or less 85% of the time, with 10 minutes or less in the October 12, 2010 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 8) rural area. He said that the areas of concern are when those goals have only been met 40% or 50% of the time, adding that court or training times for officers can greatly impact those. Ms. Mallek asked if traffic enforcement also comes out of this number. Mr. Parrent responded “yes”, but anybody assigned to the street would leave that post and respond to emergency call. Mr. Parrent added that a priority one call involves lights and sirens, and usually involves imminent threat to life or injury, shots fired, a major disorder, a domestic or physical altercation, a crime in progress, or accidents with injury, which make up about 25% of these calls. Mr. Rooker said that he has noticed Sheriff’s vehicles performing traffic duties as well, such as setting radar traps, and asked if that was by design. Mr. Parrent responded that the Police Department does try to coordinate with the Sheriff, but his opportunities for doing traffic are limited to when he can fund those operations through grants. The Sheriff is able to get grants that do not negatively affect the Police Department. Ms. Mallek asked where the hunting patrol comes in. Ms. Parrent said that extra hunting patrol comes from the Sheriff’s Department not the Police. Mr. Parrent presented his Department’s budget by division, noting that patrol comprises the largest sector, followed by investigation. If anything were taken out of patrol it would have to be immediately taken from another sector and replaced. He said that the school resource officers (5%) have been taken out of the middle schools and the neighborhood resource units to provide coverage in patrol, adding that traffic often helps patrol. He added that patrol is so critical and core that they would reduce any other area if it became necessary. He commented that there are school resource officers in the high schools. He added that they have data that can clearly show that the more traffic initiatives they do and the more traffic enforcement, accidents go down. There is a clear correlation there. They do not like to pull from that unit. Mr. Tucker pointed out that the high school resource officers have to cover the middle schools if necessary, but fortunately most of the schools are nearby. Mr. Parrent commented that it is unfortunate to lose the SROs because that is often the first contact children have with police and there is a real strong relationship often formed at that level. He added that there are a lot of programs now related to bullying and online safety targeted at those age groups. The SROs are absolutely necessary in the high school to prevent any incidents. Mr. Rooker asked when the school resource officer placement began. Mr. Parrent responded that he believes that when former Police Chief John Miller came on he began that program, which has been hugely successful. Mr. Rooker noted that the threats at schools have increased substantially, as have the expectations from parents about how they will be controlled. Mr. Boyd asked if there is information available on where funding comes from in terms of federal, state and local sources. Mr. Parrent replied that asset forfeiture is separate, but the balance totals $65,000, which comes from officers on the street making seizures, etc. Mr. Boyd said that he didn’t mean to target a specific fund, but just wanted to know where revenues come from. Mr. Parrent said he can put together that information. He added that through grants the Department gets an average of $250,000 annually, with some assigned to capital and some for operating. Mr. Boyd asked if the County shares in any of the speeding ticket revenues, etc. Mr. Parrent responded that the only revenue not realized is for crimes that involve incarceration. Mr. Parrent reported that salaries and benefits comprise 82% of the Department’s approximate $12.0 million budget, with overtime bringing that total to 86%. He said that almost 12% of the total budget involves fixed costs. In times of budget shortfall the Department must pull from discretionary accounts. Mr. Parrent noted that the training budget is only .5% of total expenditures, but that is one area that provides an opportunity for reductions. Mr. Rooker asked what administrative costs are built into the budget other than personnel. Mr. Parrent explained that those costs are office supplies, electricity, postage, insurance deductibles, public official liability, etc. He added that it takes a lot to adequately equip an officer. Mr. Snow noted that there is about $462,000 in overtime and asked if it could be reduced if there were four extra officers. Mr. Parrent replied that it would definitely have an impact, although there is some unavoidable overtime such as officers coming in for court. Mr. Foley stated that this is one issue that would be discussed as part of the Board’s deliberation of near-term challenges, which will address unfilled positions. Mr. Rooker asked if the overtime among officers is spread out somewhat evenly. Mr. Parrent responded that the overtime resides mostly in patrol now, as officers are held over for another shift if the Department is short-staffed. He added that some of the payout could be mitigated by offering time off, but they are not in a position of giving that because it puts them below minimum staffing. Mr. Parrent said that October 12, 2010 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 9) the mandated overtime can lead to burnout, and the contracted overtime with the community is not reflected in this number. Mr. Boyd commented that overtime seems to be so unpredictable that it might not be eliminated with additional staff, adding that he was surprised the number is as low as it is. Mr. Parrent stated that one major event can add major overtime. He indicated that the snowstorm of last winter raised the bar on the overtime through the roof. Mr. Parrent said that to put a new officer on the street, salaries and benefits only comprise about half of the $117,000 needed, with a car, computer, phone, etc. being a mandatory part of the job. He added that they have even started doing virtual roll call; as soon as the officer logs on, they go directly to their beat. Mr. Thomas asked about the miscellaneous category in the budget. Mr. Parrent responded that some of those costs include hiring costs such as polygraphs, medical exams, background investigations, academy service fees, etc. He explained that in hiring an experienced officer there are lower costs except for base salary, because the Department does not have to pay for academy and training, etc. Ms. Mallek asked if most of the hires are from elsewhere or are they starting out with Albemarle. Mr. Parrent said that this changes over the years, but right now the department has a lot of people who are just starting their careers here. He noted that people are less likely to move to this area now because of the economy, as they do not want to uproot their families and may not be able to sell their homes. Ms. Mallek also said that they may be hesitant to come here because of the budget cuts and uncertainties in keeping their jobs here. Mr. Snow pointed out that the County has not really let anyone go, but has just reallocated positions as people have retired. Ms. Mallek stated that every year the Department has requested more than what the Board has funded. Mr. Elliott reiterated that the authorized number is 123 officers. The Department then said they could reduce that number by five, thus they are working with the 118, and with retirements, attrition, etc., they have only been able to achieve a level of 111, which is where they have been for a year now. Mr. Parrent commented that the turnover rate has been seven or eight officers per year, but that has declined over the last few years as people are staying. Mr. Rooker commented that a lot of people seem to stay in or return to law enforcement because that is where they want to be. Mr. Parrent presented a comparison of per-capita costs with Albemarle at $127, which is at the bottom of the peer group. He said that he thinks they are very lean and very efficient as an agency. He does think that over time operating at that level will have an impact on the community because they are not doing the community policing initiatives, the middle schools, and some of the proactivity. Mr. Thomas asked if localities like Hanover are doing the neighborhood patrolling. Mr. Parrent responded that he would guess that with their population and crime rate, they most likely are. He also reported that Human Resources conducted a comparison study on starting salaries with a number of jurisdictions. Based on the data Albemarle is 5.58% down from the median starting salary. He added that there are also other pieces to this. There is the current economy to consider and sometimes potential applicants do not look at what the agency has to offer, but instead look at the starting salary. The current strategy is to do as many interviews as possible, and out of 150 applicants for the last search, 25 background checks were performed. The background checks are very costly. Mr. Parrent stated that it is getting tougher and tougher searching now to get qualified candidates. Mr. Boyd asked how competitive Albemarle is when hiring someone with a number of years of experience. Mr. Parrent said they would like to have officers from other jurisdictions come here, but because of the economy that has not been the case. Mr. Parrent added that once an officer goes up in rank, the comparative salary discrepancy is not as much of an issue as the pay catches up somewhat. Mr. Rooker suggested that those starting salaries be adjusted up to the median, as that would be reasonably inexpensive. Mr. Tucker cautioned that compression might be an issue with that approach, because people who are already here might get pushed down when comparing salary. Mr. Foley pointed out that when these studies are done for teachers, Human Resources does the entire comprehensive scale, targeting the midpoint but also evaluate starting salaries, etc. He said that some recommendations from this study would be presented to the Board later in this meeting. Mr. Parrent added that they have also discussed other strategies such as hiring incentives to get them through these challenging times. He reported that in 2008 the Department was successful in meeting training needs for officers, but due to the economy and staffing the level of training has been less, although officers are meeting the minimum standards for certification. This is of great concern because of October 12, 2010 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 10) the decrease in proficiency on the street in various areas. He added that new laws and policy changes have nothing to do with basic certifications. For example, they do training at the basic level which allows them to qualify, but they do not do a lot of other drills. In terms of staff, he believes that there would also definitely be a decrease in level of service to citizens in both emergency response and general calls, adding that there is additional concern for officers’ safety especially in the rural areas without sufficient backup. Mr. Parrent reiterated that patrol is the core service of the agency and they must build their budget and resources around that area. If patrol is not fully staffed, other critical units and/or programs are impacted, reduced or eliminated including the neighborhood resource units; school resource officers in middle schools; the traffic unit; and recruitment and training; investigations; and crime prevention. In terms of investigations, there are several special partnerships that could be enhanced by meeting the 1.5 ratio, such as focusing on internet crimes against children, improved participation on the terrorism task force, etc. He mentioned that their current level on the street is mostly reactive which means they are not doing a lot in the crime prevention area. Mr. Rooker asked if the agency still has the satellite offices. Mr. Parrent replied “yes”, but they are for administrative matters not walk-ins. Ms. Mallek asked about the mobile truck unit. Mr. Parrent responded that the mobile truck unit is currently not filled, but two officers are being evaluated for training in order to get that unit back up now. He added that part of the reason that unit was taken down was because Mr. Dennis Harvey retired. He added that they do feel it is critical. Ms. Mallek noted that this unit has been responsible for getting improperly designated farm use vehicles off the street. It seems that since this unit has not been operating, these vehicles have been quite prevalent in the area. She added that this unit was the only effective way for them to make progress on Earlysville Road with 18-wheelers using it as a parallel tract to Route 29. The fact that they might wait 45 minutes at the bridge while he inspected everyone going by made them stop using the road. She hopes that the unit comes back. Mr. Parrent responded that they hope to get it back on the road soon. Mr. Snow asked how long the four vacant positions have been open. Mr. Parrent responded that the actual level is closer to 111, and they have been vacant for a year or year and a half. He said that if the Department could be successful in attracting certified candidates, those positions could be filled fairly quickly. He added that they now only have one person dedicated to training and recruitment. Ms. Mallek asked if they do background checks in-house or do they have a more cost effective way of doing it. Mr. Parrent pointed out that often they have contracted with retired officers to do the background checks, which has been very helpful. Mr. Dorrier asked about using the Sheriff’s Department personnel since a number of them are certified. Mr. Parrent replied that they are facing the same staffing issues, so it is not likely that Sheriff Harding would have anyone to give up. Mr. Snow asked if it would be practical to bring in auxiliary personnel. Mr. Parrent responded that auxiliary personnel are helpful with traffic control and major events, but would not be of assistance to the Department for response calls. Mr. Thomas commented that auxiliaries need a certified officer to accompany them when performing duties. Mr. Tucker added that Sheriff Harding uses the auxiliary personnel for search and rescue, which is very helpful. Mr. Parrent indicated that they took that on from the Police Department a few years ago, and it has been a huge help to them in staff time. Mr. Elliott noted that they also use auxiliary forces when transporting offenders. Since they need two, they use a certified officer to accompany the auxiliary personnel. He stated that despite shortfalls, the Police Department continues to use a number of innovative ways of tracking crime and deploying resources. Mr. Snow expressed his appreciation to the Department for all of their work and said he would work to help get them the extra help they need. __________ Mr. Elliott said he hopes Board members were able to gain some insight into how these two departments pull together their budgets. He encouraged Board members to read the materials provided by Mr. Mullaney who has demonstrated that he is at the zero base of his budget and has offered some areas for further cutbacks, along with the consequences of those reductions. Mr. Elliott reiterated that the Police Department’s core mission is the police officer on the street; everything is built around that officer. The reductions they have taken have been painful in terms of their mission for community policing. Ms. Lori Allshouse, Director of the Office of Management and Budget, said that she would be sharing information on critical short term and emerging priority areas. Her presentation will include critical pressures affecting local government and those that they will be embarking on in the future. She reported that the Leadership Council asked all departments heads what core services are being provided at below October 12, 2010 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 11) basic levels and also asked them about potential efficiencies moving forward, as well as upcoming mandates that might have an impact. Ms. Allshouse said that staff also asked Constitutional Officers for information. Leadership Council then took all of this information and performed an evaluation which is being presented to the Board today. Ms. Allshouse said that there are five essential core service needs: 1) fill vacant public safety positions with qualified candidates; 2) reduce overtime usage for fire and rescue personnel; 3) provide continued fire protection coverage to the Ivy area; 4) support adequate facility maintenance and replacement to stay at basic level; and 5) insure staff capacity to support a transforming organization. Ms. Allshouse said that in terms of filling vacant public safety positions with qualified candidates, staff does not feel the County public safety starting salaries are competitive with peer localities and staff wants to insure existing hiring standards necessary to maintain quality of incoming candidates. The Leadership Council is recommending that the County adjust/reclassify salaries to fill current vacation positions. Ms. Allshouse stated that they also want to retain existing staff and consider freeing up the five frozen police officer positions. Mr. Boyd commented that he thought the positions were clerical, not officers. Mr. Elliott confirmed that the positions are officer/patrol positions, with the level currently at 118 and the authorized level being 123. He emphasized that the focus has been on maintaining patrol positions, so that what ends up being cut are the SRO and traffic officer positions. Mr. Foley reiterated that they are five positions that are moved to patrol. Ms. Mallek said that they are clearly not clerical positions. In terms of reduction of the overtime usage of fire and rescue personnel, Ms. Allshouse said that vacancies in Fire/Rescue have consistently averaged two to three per month, causing forced overtime. The forced overtime hours have doubled in the last year. In addition, on average it takes about six months to train a new hire in Fire/Rescue. The Council is suggesting over-hiring, whereby additional people are hired to ensure that there are people to respond to emergencies. It is a process undertaken by the Emergency Communications Center. Ms. Allshouse stated that adding two positions would help address the overtime costs, but a little bit of additional study is needed. Ms. Mallek said she would like to know how much of the overtime is for training during work schedule. Mr. Elliott commented that this concept is similar to what Mr. Snow brought up for the Police Department, and with Fire/Rescue this would essentially be to cover shifts. The spike in overtime during the past fiscal year is due to the 12-hour required shift coverage and not having enough qualified people to fill the day time slots. Mr. Thomas asked if the volunteers can help more than they are now. Mr. Elliott responded that these are the stations that have requested paid staffing during daytime hours, and it is possible that someone who has worked a full shift gets called to go to another station for coverage. He stated that there are some firefighters on a 12-hour shift and some that are on a 24-hour shift. Ms. Mallek commented that if there were volunteers who could split the day shift that would help. Mr. Snow asked how the stations are staffed. Fire Chief, Dan Eggleston explained that six stations are staffed during the daytime in 12-hour shifts, which is a 48-hour work week; others are staffed 24 hours a day, where a firefighter will work a rotating 24-hour shift then have off a series of days. He added they have a minimum amount of seats that have to be filled every day in order to meet their minimum staffing requirements for at the stations. The high majority of this overtime that you are seeing is related to filling those seats due to those vacancies due to hiring, illness, and so forth. He said that the majority of stations that are staffed during the daytime are covered by paid personnel because volunteers cannot staff during the day due to work obligations. There are very few opportunities to do that cross training or cross staffing. They are also seeing some of that at night time. Mr. Rooker asked if it would help alleviate this specific problem by having more volunteers in the system right now. Mr. Eggleston replied that it probably would not alleviate the problem because there are currently volunteer stations at night that need additional staffing. He noted that the majority of the overtime demand is for daytime coverage. Mr. Boyd said that it makes sense for the staffing level to be increased, as long as the budget remains level. Ms. Allshouse stated that the third priority identified by the Leadership Council is the need for fire protection in the Ivy area, as the relocation of the City station to Fontaine Avenue in 2012 would increase the response times for the densely populated area of Ivy and Neighborhood Six. This neighborhood has a high number of single-family dwellings, multi-family apartments, student housing, condominiums, commercial developments, healthcare and elderly facilities. She said that over 520 homes in Ivy are beyond the five-mile radius from the fire station, and when the City moves to Fontaine there will be another 228 homes in this category. Ms. Allshouse noted that this may also affect ISO ratings for insurance. ISO ratings could increase for a significant number of homes in Ivy causing a substantial rise in insurance premiums for these residents. The Council is recommending the construction of the Ivy Fire Station and begins operations in FY 2013. October 12, 2010 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 12) Ms. Allshouse said that the fourth priority is ensuring that the facility replacement and maintenance stays at a basic level of service. The Council heard from Mr. George Shadman and Mr. Bill Letteri that the current minimal level of maintenance and replacement is below a basic level and not adequate to prevent costly future repairs. They want to make sure that the County avoids any debt financing in the CIP for future maintenance projects. The recommendation is to consider increasing the level of funding for maintenance and replacement to protect investment in current facilities. Mr. Boyd commented that staff should be very specific about those costs when they bring the information back to the Board. Ms. Allshouse said that the final concern relates to insuring that staff has the capacity to support this transforming organization. She stated that staff compensation needs to be competitive with market to keep experienced, qualified employees in the County workforce; the County has eliminated virtually all external training except mandated training for certification for the past two years; and significant number of repositionings, some into entirely different departments or skill areas, requires investment in professional development for employees absorbing new duties. The Council recommends building staff capacity and flexibility through investment in professional development. Based on the results of the October 6th Joint Board work session, build in a 1% increase for classified employees for initial planning purposes going forward Mr. Boyd commented that he would like to see some specific information about what the County is spending on training, as training happens at many levels of the organization. Ms. Mallek added that she would like to see some evaluation on the outcomes of training. Mr. Foley said that staff would provide detail in future meetings. Mr. Elliott said that the Leadership Council has indicated that there are about six areas that might impact core services that need to be watched over the next two to five years. The staff has spent some time talking about benefits in the Department of Social Services. They continue to see rapid increases in social service caseloads, and there may be a need to look at allocating additional resources in the coming years. He stated that there needs to be assurance in compliance with zoning regulations. There has been almost a doubling of the zoning violations since May 2009. At the same time there has been a FTE drop in that division so the County’s ability to get out and respond to violations and enforcement is being impact. Mr. Thomas asked if the violations are coming in through reports or staff investigation. Mr. Foley said that this is entirely complaint-based from the public. Mr. Rooker noted that there are no proactive zoning investigations, which is a common misconception among citizens. Mr. Foley mentioned that staff has even broken complaints down into those impacting public health and safety and those that aren’t. He noted that the staffing levels in Zoning are down 40%. Mr. Elliott also stated that there are new unfunded mandates, such as those associated with the Chesapeake Bay maximum daily load regulations, new child protection and foster care policies that will require more staff time, as well as health care reform and the impact of new Medicaid regulations which can increase from 34% to as much as 52% by the FY 2014/2015. He said that there may need to be specific attention paid to the Pantops fire station, given the growth in all sectors there, including residential, commercial, and hospital service and increasing traffic volumes. Mr. Elliott said one final item relates to citizen engagement and public information efforts. The calls for information on County programs, County work, engagement with advisory councils, board- appointed committees, etc. are ever increasing and could have an impact on the public information area of County government. Mr. Elliott said finally, they did canvass the Constitutional Officers in terms of their workloads and where they see themselves. There were peer comparisons, and there may need to be evaluation of staffing levels of the Commonwealth’s Attorney and Registrar. The other issue is what the State is doing in terms of State Comp Board support. He added that this also translates into facilities, court facilities, and the increasing workloads and caseloads anticipated in the court system. Mr. Tucker said that he considers some of the long-term and quality of life issues as those that make Albemarle, Albemarle, including community policing; school resource officers; water protection areas; parks and recreation facilities and programs, such as restoring hours of operation at the swimming beaches; Regional Jail expansion, as the Jail is already over 150% capacity; master plan-related infrastructure projects such as sidewalks; library facilities; ACE funding/rural area protection services; and maintaining park and greenway expansion as there are people who want to donate the land. He said that the overarching area is long-term funding for capital programs previously identified by the Board as a strategic issue. In summary, Mr. Tucker said staff provided Board members with a review of the County’s efficiency efforts; a closer look at the County’s expenditure and budget development processes in Parks and Recreation and the Police Departments; and a review of critical short-term needs, emerging priorities and longer-term issues identified by Leadership Council. October 12, 2010 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 13) Mr. Tucker stated that tomorrow the Board would meet with the School Division, who would provide a similar overview of their area, and on November 3 the Board would have their first five-year financial planning process meeting, hopefully finalization of the five-year planning process slated for December which will help inform building the annual budget for the next fiscal year. Mr. Tucker said he would ask that the Board adjourn to 2:30 p.m., on October 13th because they will be interviewing a potential board/commission member at that time. Ms. Mallek commented that she would like to see library facilities bumped up to a short-term priority as opposed to remaining long term because of the economic benefit a new library facility would create. She has heard numerous stories from colleagues around the state about how investment in their rural area libraries has yielded considerable commercial revenue for the surrounding areas. _______________ Agenda Item No. 3. Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. There were none. _______________ Agenda Item No. 4. Adjourn to October 13, 2010, 3:00 p.m., Room 241. At 11:30 a.m., Mr. Rooker moved to adjourn the meeting until October 13, 2010 at 2:30 p.m. in the County Executive’s Conference Room on the Fourth Floor. Mr. Boyd seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Mallek, Mr. Snow, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier. NAYS: None. ________________________________________ Chairman Approved by Board Date: 03/02/2011 Initials: EWJ