Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-01-17 adjJanuary 17, 1990 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 1) 74 An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on January 17, 1990, at 8:00 A.M., Meeting Room #5, County Office Building, 401McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. This meeting was adjourned from January 10, 1990. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. Edward H. Bain, Jr., David P. Bowerman (arrived at 8:05 A.M.), F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Charlotte Humphris, Messrs. Walter F. Perkins and Peter T. Way. OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive. Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at 8:05 A.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Bowie. Agenda Item No. 2. Joint Meeting with School Board. School Board Members Present: Messrs. Richard A. Bagby, William W. Finley, Clifford W. Haury, Charles S. Martin, Mrs. Patricia L. Moore, and Mr. Roger R. Ward. Also present were the Superintendent of Schools, Mr. N. Andrew Overstreet, and the Director of Personnel and Human Resources, Dr. Carole A. Hastings. Mr. Martin, Chairman of the School Board, introduced the two new School Board members. Mr. Bowie, Chairman of the Board of Supervisors, introduced the two new Supervisors. Agenda Item No. 2a. Presentation of Market Survey - Classified Employee Salaries. Mrs. Hastings said there is an annual market salary survey made by her department comparing Albemarle County to other counties to make sure Albemarle remains competitive. She reported that the results confirm the fact that the County's scale is below the market. She said Mr. Perkins had suggested that the local business community be involved in such a survey. She said a commit- tee of business persons was formed and a comparison of Albemarle County to 23 local businesses was made. She then introduced Ms. Susan Cabell of Martha Jefferson Hospital's Department of Human Resources and President of the Chamber of Commerce. Other members of the committee present were Mr. Chuck Hill, Personnel Director at State Farm; and Mr. Charlie Lundstrom, Personnel Director from Sperry Marine. Mrs. Hastings said the purpose of the scale is to retain quality employ- ees and make sure the best people possible are hired. She said the survey indicated that the County is behind 5.6 percent on the minimum pay scale and 6.3 percent on the maximum pay scale for local government employees. Mrs. Hastings said the recommended scale adjustment for July 1, 1989, of 7.5 percent was an actual scale adjustment of 2.5 percent. Even if the scale is adjusted 7.5 percent, the County would still be behind the market. She reported that of the 1921 permanent employees of the County, 232 employees terminated by December 31, 1989. That is an attrition rate of 24 percent. Mrs. Hastings pointed out that 199 of that 232 employees were employees of the School Division. Of the 199 employees leaving the School Division, 98 were teachers. Mrs. Hastings said the scale adjustment recommendations do not include teachers, although the salary data on teachers indicates that some adjustments need to be made there also. Mrs. Hastings said several factors used for comparison with other locali- ties were the size of the school division, the size of the community, the level of economic disadvantages, etc. Some of the counties included in the comparison group were Chesterfield, Clarke, Fauquier, Goochland, Hanover and James City. Mr. Martin asked if this is the same group used for educational comparisons. Mrs. Hastings said it is the same group. Mrs. Hastings then asked Mrs. Cabell to make some comments from the private sector point of view. Mrs. Cabell said she would give her opinion and the other committee members might want to speak as well. She said all of them January 17, 1990 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 2) 75 had been in the Human Resources field for 20 years or more and are all re- cruiting from the same group of people. She personally represents a service group which is similar to Albemarle County. Mrs. Cabell suggested that the County establish a philosophy or concept of how competitive it wants to be. The determination has to be made as to whether the County wants to compete with the low, middle or higher range of the employment market. She concluded from the survey that there needs to be some work done on the salary scale in local government. Specifically, she felt lowering the turnover rate should be considered because it is expensive to replace employees. She said in talking with Michie Company representatives, she was informed that each loss of an employee at a professional level costs about $8,000. She felt that either a 24 or a 16 percent turnover rate is too high. She suggested that the County evaluate the actual recruitment and training costs. She pointed out that it will be more difficult to catch up as the scale gets further behind the market and other localities. In summary, if there is not enough competition in salary or benefits, the employer cannot compete in the job market. Mr. Chuck Hill added that once a philosophy or position in the market is established, the comprehensive salary/benefits package can be considered to increase competition. For example, members of the health plan could be required to share more of the cost of the insurance. Mr. Charlie Lundstrom said the process of this survey is the same method his company would use. He said it appears in looking at the results, that 83 percent of the positions listed are below local market. He pointed out that that fact makes it very difficult to recruit and retain employees. He also felt that a 24 percent turnover rate is high. He said Sperry's attrition rate is 10 percent. He said a turnover rate this highLleaves a question as to the efficiency of an organization. He said he agrees with the recommendations Mrs. Hastings proposes. He said the scale should be adjusted. He said his company adjusts its scale every year at a rate of 4.5 percent for exempt and non-exempt employees. He said it is necessary in order to remain competitive. Mr. Bowie said the County had made a 2.5 percent adjustment to the scale last year. The Pay for Performance pool was an additional five percent. He said he could not see raising the scale five percent in addition to that 7.5 percent last year. He asked if the committee was suggesting that it is better to discontinue pay for performance and put the raises in the scale. Mrs. Cabell said she was not sure that is what was intended. She said an allotted percentage could be divided to increase the scale by a certain percentage and use the remaining portion to pay for benefits. She felt it is necessary to do both. If there is not a good scale, new people will not be attracted. If benefits are not given, employees will not stay. She said at Martha Jefferson Hospital current employees are moved within the scale first so that new people are hired at a lower rate of pay. She said that also boosts the morale of current employees. Mr. Hill said the minimum on the scale attracts new people, and the maximum indicates to a perspective employee how much opportunity there will be for advancement. He said there is a need for performance increases in the system as well as scale changes. He said his company basically works so that someone below the middle point of a particular rating would earn more dollars than someone above the middle point in the same scale. Once an employee reaches the mid-point, we slow them down so performance increases become less. Mr. Way asked what effect there would be if all benefits were included as well as the salaries in the comparisons. Mrs. Hastings said that Albemarle County is not doing more than or less than other employers in local industries in terms of benefits provided. Thus, including b~nefits would not affect the survey significantly. Mr. Lundstrom said the committee looked at Albemarle County's benefits and felt they were better thought of as incentives, and they should be kept separate from salary considerations. Mr. Lundstrom felt that benefits do not necessarily motivate. He termed benefits as "satisfiers" rather than motiva- tors from the employer's point of view. January 17, 1990 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 3) 7¸6 Mr. Bowie asked if the County is competitive when salary and benefits are considered together. Mrs. Hastings said the County is competitive only with benefits. Mrs. Moore wondered if it is realistic to compare the County to an employer like General Electric. She said she is more interested in where the County fits within the median range among competitors. Mrs. Hastings said that information can be provided. She pointed out that Mr. Brandenburger compared requirements for similar positions among those employers surveyed, so that he was aware of which categories were comparable to Albemarle County. She said that is why the County does a salary survey each year on benchmark positions. Mr. Finley asked what a five percent increase would be when each dollar in salary costs about $1.27 in benefits. Mrs. Hastings said there is a considerable increase in benefit costs in raising the scale. Mr. Agnor pointed out that increasing the salary scale does not affect all benefits. Scale adjustments affect Social Security, retirement, and life insurance only. Mr. Ward wondered what else impacts the turn over rate. He said a five percent salary difference does not seem to be significant enough alone to cause an employee to change jobs. Mrs. Hastings said that exit surveys show that the majority of the employees leaving the County say they are leaving to take a higher salary. Other reasons include moving from the area and for personal reasons. Mrs. Hastings said what the County does is attract people, spend time and effort to train them, they become familiar with the work and then leave the County's employment. She said it is not so much a matter of losing employees who have been here a long time. Essentially, the County is training people for local industry. In the professional field, employees are going to other localities. Mr. Bowie asked if those leaving are taking a job doing the same thing or taking a promotion by leaving. Mrs. Hastings said that was difficult to determine. She said the Personnel Department's experience last year was that three minority employees had been hired, trained, etc. and took jobs with local industries at higher rates for the same type of positions. Mr. Bowie said the five percent scale adjustment will help the people who stay, but won't keep people who are leaving for higher rates. Mr. Bain said he would be interested in seeing the actual figures showing a breakdown of job classes. He wondered if the problem is in certain depart- ments only or if it is consistent throughout all departments. Mrs. Hastings said that Mr. Agnor had asked for that information last year because the feeling was that this was a problem in one department. She said the informa- tion showed that adjustments to the scale are necessary in all departments. Mr. Overstreet said he was concerned about how goals establishing a competitive range could be developed. Mrs. Cabell responded that most organ- izations want to be competitive at the median range. Mr. Overstreet asked what impact would result from competing at a level less than the median range. Mr. Lundstrom said for his company it means that they cannot attract people necessary for their programs. He pointed out that private industry has more flexibility in that specific pay ranges can be changed overnight. Mr. Overstreet asked who establishes the competition range goals for Mr. Lundstrom's company. Mr. Lundstrom said that is the responsibility of top management. Mr. Bowerman said he felt that the impact on productivity is important in setting ranges. He wondered how that impact was considered in the private sector. Mrs. Cabell said in her business, productivity is impacted by the amount of time and money spent to train new employees to become productive. She said it is a matter of looking at how to do more with less. It is cheaper to keep current employees than to recruit someone new and train them. Mr. Lundstrom added that there will be a direct reflection on produc- tivity of the established work force. He said his company program is based on a fairly strict performance rating system which they use to try to limit the turnover and increase productivity. January 17, 1990 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 4) 77 Mrs. Hastings said the County has a pay for performance system in which each employee is evaluated on an annual basis and given increases or not, based on performance. However, she felt that is a separate issue from the salary scale for hiring new people. Mr. Bagby wondered if the maximum rate figures in the report included pay for performance opportunities. Mrs. Hastings said the figures reflect strictly salaries. She agreed that in terms of total personal income, the pay for performance addition could be made. However, the problem being addressed through the salary scale adjustment is Albemarle County's ability to attract new employees. Mr. Bagby asked what percentage of employees have reached the maximum point in their pay grades. Mrs. Hastings said she could get those exact figures, but she thought it was about two or three percent of the employees. Mr. Bowie said there is only a limited amount of money to work with. He said if adjusting the scale is more important than the benefits, that decision would have to be made. He said the only way to make a change to the scale is through the budget process. Mrs. Hastings said her recommendation and hope was that a scale adjust- ment could be made prior to the end of this fiscal year. Mr. Bain asked Mr. Agnor to comment in terms of the financial aspects for the last quarter with regard to Mrs. Hastings' recommendation. Mr. Agnor said the report is for the Board's information today. He pointed out for the new Board members that the County had been studying a flexible benefits program since last fall. In light of the results of this survey which show the County well behind its competitors, Mr. Agnor said that rather than pursue a flexible benefits program, he felt the Board should be given this information. He said staff is currently preparing the budget and will be finished by the end of January. After that is completed, Mr. Agnor said he could come back to the Board and indicate whether anything can be done regarding a scale adjustment in this fiscal year. He said a quick preview of information coming from Richmond is that State revenue short falls are impacting local treasuries as well. Mr. Bowie said the Board has representatives on the Personnel Advisory Committee. He suggested that the School Board appoint two new members to that committee and that this matter be considered for a budget recommendation. Mr. Bain added that he would like to look at this request in terms of the salaries for the last quarter of this year at the February day meeting of the Board. Mr. Overstreet asked the School Board members to think about being more active in terms of setting a competitive range or salary goals, or at the least, to identify what ranges would not be acceptable. Mr. Haury wondered about the possibility of setting up a graduated salary scale using a higher entry level salary and continuing to keep the top end of the scale competitive as well. Mrs. Hastings said the present scale is rigid. She said a graduated scale could be studied. Mr. Agnor said that concept was tried a few years ago. He said it created havoc in terms of job relation- ships. The result was that the scale became compressed in the middle. Mr. Martin said the School Board would place Mr. OverStreet's suggestion on its agenda. He pointed out that it would be necessary for the School Board to see what the Board of Supervisors is willing to fund. Mr. Way said he liked Mr. Bowie's proposal to have members of each Board work together on this. Mrs. Hastings thanked the members of local industry for the time they gave to this survey and for being present today. Mr. Bowie expressed the Board's thanks as well. January 17, 1990 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 5) 78 Agenda Item No. 3. Status of the Urban Area Elementary School. Mr. Bowie said he placed this item on the agenda to let the School Board know the status of this item. He asked the County Executive to make a report to the Boards. Mr. Agnor said the Planning staff is examining sites using the archi- tect's (VMDO) report in addition to one other site. He said staff is looking at such things as the effect on surrounding property, the cost of acquisition, and whether the site is compatible with Comprehensive Plan recommendations. He said that the Whitewood Road site will not be included in this review by direction of the Board of Supervisors. He said a public hearing would be held on February 6 before the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission will forward a report to the Board on the best site from a land use and economic point of view. That report is to be available for the Board's February 14 meeting. Mr. Agnor suggested that if at all possible, the February joint meeting be held on the afternoon of February 14 so that the report can be made to both Boards simultaneously. He said the School Board certainly needs to be involved in the final decision on which site will have further study from the standpoint of architectural design. (Mr. Perkins left at 8:30 A.M.) Mr. Martin asked if the additional site Mr. Agnor mentioned is within the urban ring. Mr. Agnor said it is. Mr. Martin asked if the school administration is aware of the location of that site. Mr. Agnor said they were not; he was just told about it yesterday. He said there is a possibility it will be dropped because the land is not available from the standpoint of land use. Mr. Martin requested that the School Board be informed of any site being considered. He said another thing that concerns him is the process followed regarding the Whitewood Road site. He felt that site should have been in- cluded in the study. Mr. Bain said the Board voted against including that site. Mr. Martin said that any site should go through the process. When the site that the School Board specifically wanted to have included is not, Mr. Martin felt that indicated that the Board of Supervisors is interfering with the School Board's job. He said even if the Whitewood Road site went through the process and was selected by the Planning Commission, the Board of Supervisors has the authori- ty to say no at that point. Mr. Bain said the Whitewood Road site has been through the process. He said the Board of Supervisors had quite a long discussion and had several votes. The final decision was not to consider the Whitewood Road property for a school site but to keep it for a park. He said the Board of Supervisors was aware that this was the School Board's recommendation. Mr. Martin said that the School Board was criticized for studying two or three sites. He felt that this study by the Planning Commission is not complete unless it has all the possible options. He felt the Whitewood Road possibility needed to be weighed by the Planning Commission. Even if a school could not be built there, he felt it should be included for comparison rea- sons. Mr. Haury said in order to proceed with the new elementary school project, it would be better to look at the most realistic options. He said from the Board's review it is their judgement that another use is more appro- priate. In his opinion, that limits the choices. Given the time frame for this project, he felt it is more important to move ahead than to worry about the Whitewood Road site at this point. Mr. Haury pointed out that the Whitewood Road site was originally included because it is School Board proper- ty and because it is in the urban ring. He said the Long Range Planning Committee did not consider the possibility of the site for park use. He said he feels the School Board's recommendation has had a hearing, and he would like to proceed on schedule. January 17, 1990 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 6) Mr. Bowie said that Mr. Martin's objection is duly noted. He said the report from the Planning Commission will be available on February 14 at a joint meeting with the School Board. The meeting was set for 3:00 P.M. Mr. Bagby said from reading the Long Range Planning Committee report, it appears that in the next six to eight years a middle and high school will have to be built near the urban ring. He wondered if the sites are being studied with the potential for an adjacent school in mind. Mr. Way said one of the problems with that suggestion is that, as far as he is concerned, the location of these other schools has not been decided on. Mr. Bagby said he was suggesting that it would be good to have that potential on a site. Mr. Bain agreed that the need is clear for an elementary school. How- ever, it has not been decided where a new high school would be built. At 9:15 A.M., the joint meeting was adjourned. The Board recessed at 9:15 A.M. and then reconvened at 9:24 P.M. Agenda Item No. 4. Capital Improvement Program Revenues. Mr. Agnor said the Board had received a new spread sheet incorporating figures from the last meeting. Under Education, Item No. 2, $135,000 should be included for the urban area elementary school new facility. Regarding the estimate for roof replacement at Rose Hill, Mr. Agnor said the project is necessary for the protection of the building. He said the bathroom facilities would have to be changed from elementary sized fixtures to be used for the alternative education program. He said the bid total is $255,000. The roof replacement amount is $210,000. The remaining $45,000 is for bathroom changes. He said $75,000 had already been scheduled in 1990-91. The Albemarle High School renovation project needs $100,000 to begin the study for renovations. He said two things are needed today. These three project amounts must be appropriated for the six month period. And more importantly, the Board needs to adopt the five year Capital Improvements Program. Mr. Agnor explained that staff has been working on prorating the assess- ment of personal property taxes. He said the target effective date is Janu- ary, 1991. He said this change should increase revenues by ten to twenty percent, which could mean up to $1 million. He noted that there are costs associated with putting this into effect which would affect the 1990-91 budget. Those costs will be built into the budget. He said when the five- year plan is adopted, money is only appropriated as each fiscal year comes up. Therefore, some of these numbers will change as the latter years of the Program approach. He said the amounts listed in the 1990-91 column would be appropriated some time in the last part of April when the operating budget is completed. He said that he explained this personal property history to show that staff will need to finish plans for implementing collection of taxes two times a year if that is what the Board decides to do. He said staff would have to prepare ordinances to this effect for the Board's review in February. If one-half of the personal property tax is to be collected in June, decal sales will have to be held in December or January of next year. Mr. Agnor said that last year the decal fees were raised to $20. In December, 1990, the charge would be $15 for a nine-month period. He said the Board needs to be aware that the FY89-90 revenues will be undercollected by $275,000 due to this change. Mr. Agnor said $875,000 had been set aside to take care of the first year costs of the bond issue. He said there would be a request for $580,000 for payment of interest on that bond issue on tonight's agenda. That would leave $290,000 available. He said revenues would show a downward trend by changing the decal cycle. He said for a number of years staff has pointed out that splitting real estate and personal property taxes would create a windfall. In Mr. Agnor's opinion, the $5.1 million from personal property is absolutely essential for this cycle of the CIP in light of the $43 million for projects in the next five years. January 17, 1990 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 7) 8O Mr. Agnor recommended that the Board consider adopting the five-year CIP and give staff permission to proceed with preparing an ordinance in February to sell decals and start up the split personal property tax collection in 90-91. Mr. Bain asked when the County would know what its revenues from the State will be. Mr. Agnor said there would be budget work sessions the last two weeks in March. Mr. Bain said the meals tax is still a source of revenue. He agrees with Mr. Agnor's recommendation regarding a split collection of personal property taxes. Mr. Bowie said he has been opposed to a split personal property tax, but he sees no other way to increase revenues. Mr. Way said he has had seVeral calls in the last few months from people who want this done in order to pay a smaller amount at a time. He agrees that the personal property tax collection should be split. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Way to accept Mr. Agnor's recommendation to add three items for $135,000, $185,000 and $100,000 back to the CIP in the 1989-90 fiscal year and to appropriate the same amount by adopting the following resolution. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, and Mr. Way. None. Mr. Perkins. FISCAL YEAR 89/90 NUMBER 890026 FUND CAPITAL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: ADDITIONAL PROJECTS FOR FY 89/90 CAPITAL BUDGET. EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1900060215312350 URBAN AREA ELEMENTARY $135,000.00 1900060208312350 ROSE HILL ELEMENTARY 185,000.00 1900060301312350 ALBEMARLE HIGH 100 ~ 000.00 TOTAL $420,000.00 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2900041000410300 VPSA BOND PROCEEDS $3,313,417.00 2900051000510100 APP. FROM CIP FUND BALANCE (3,313,417.00) 2900051000510100 APP. FROM CIP FUND BALANCE 420~000.00 TOTAL $ 420,000.00 Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Bowerman to adopt the 1990-91 to 1994-95 Capital Improvement Program as follows. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, and Mr. Way. None. Mr. Perkins January 17, 1990 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 8) O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CD 0 0 0 0 u'~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I~ ~ 0 0 ~ ,~, 0 0 c,"1LB F~ CD Ln 0 C~1 0 0 0 0'~ 0 CD urn, ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C~ 0 0 0 CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C'4 0 0 .4' ut't O0 c'~ CO u'~ u'~ ~0 CO 0 0 CD CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CD 0 0 '0 0 0 CD 0 0 0 '0 ,,..-I 0 u~ 0 0 u'~ r~ CO u-; ,-.t ~0 '.0 ~0 ,~1 ~ 0 0 0 CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 u'~ 0 0 u'~ CD ,~ 0 0 0 0 0 C~ 0 0 ..~ 0 u'~ CO u~ 0 0 0 ~ ~-I t~ '.,0 c'~ r"4 CO r-I ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 ~ 0 u'~ ~0 u'~ 0 0 0 81 January (Page 9) 17, 1990 (Adjourned Meeting) 0000000~ 0000000 O0 0000000 000 0 0 oo 0 o o8 000000000000 0 000000000000 0 0 0 000000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 000000000000 0 0 c~ 0 O0 0 000000000000 0 0000000 0 000~000 ~0~0~ 000000000000 000 00~ 000000000000 0 000000000000 0 00000~00000 0 g~~o~ oo o ~ ~0~O0 000000000000 0 0 O0 0 0 ~ 000000000000 000000000000 0 000000000000 ~o~o~~ o~oo°° o° 000000000000 0 000000000000 0 ~00000000000 0 ~0~00~~ ~ 82 January 17, (Page 10) 1990 (Adjourned 000 O0 0 Meeting) 000000 0 0 0 000 O0 ,0 000000 000 O0 0 000000 ~ O0 oo ~ °° ~ 000 O0 0 000000 ~ 0 0 000 O0 0 000000 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 00~ O0 0 O~ O0 ~ O0 000000 0 ~ O0 0 000000 0 O~ O0 0 000000 0 0~ O0 0 000000 0 00~ O0 0 000000 O~ 0 O~ 000 O0 0 000000 0 00~ O0 0 000000 0 0~0 O0 0 000000 0 ~ ~ ~ ~0~000 ~ o~ oc~ 0 0 o g I 00~ O0 0 000000 0 0~1~ ~ ~ ~ ~0~000 ~ ~10 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 0 O0 O0 0 0 O0 O0 O0 OU'~ O0 O0 O0 L~ OC 83 January 17, (Page 11) 1990 (Adjourned Meeting) 0 000 O0 00.4' -.t 0 000 O0 000 O0 0 0 000 (DO 0 0 O0 0 0 O0 0 0 OOu'~ O0 (DO 0 OU'l 0 0 000 (DO O0 0 000 0 000 ~ 00~ OOC~ O0 0000 0 000 O0 OO,4' ,-4 0 000 O0 00~ 0 000 ~0 00~ ~ 00~ O0 ~ O0 0000 O0 0000 ~0 0 000 0 000 00~ O0 O0 0000 ~0 ~ 00~ oo oo ~ O0 O0 O~ O0 O0 ~ O0 oo oo ~ O0 O0 O0 O0 ~ O0 O0 ~ O0 O0 0 O0 O0 84 January 17, 1990 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 12) 0 0000 0 0 0 C:'O0 0 0 0 u9 0000 0 0 0 000 O0 u9 0 · -,-9' ,N uq 0000 0 0 0 000 ""-.0 0 m-~ I,.¢9 0 0 0000 0 0 0 000 '~' 0 0 0 0 0 CD 0000 0 '.0 0 000 0 0000 0 0 0 0000 0 0 ~ 0 0 O0 r,.q t'q 0 0000 0 ~ 0 ~00 0 0000 0 ~ ~ ~0 0 ~00~ ~ 0 ~ ~0 0 0000 0 0 0 ~00 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ 0 0 ~ ~ 0 0000 0 ~ 0 000 0 0000 0 ~ 0 0~0 ~ ~000 ~ 0 ~ ~0 0 0000 0 ~ 0 000 0 0000 0 ~ 0 ~ ~000 ~ 0 ~ ~0 8-..% January 17, (Page 13) 1990 (Adjourned Meeting) 86 O0 O0 00~ O0~lO000~ I0010100 000000000 ~0010100~ 7oo78ooo? 00 I00 O~ ~ O0 O~ ~ O0 0 ~ ~go, ,00 000 ~00~0100~ 00000000010 ' ~' ~' 000 ~ 0 ~ OOC 0 000000000 0 ~0~01000~ 00000000~ 000000000 ~0000000~ ~000~00 00~~ ~llllOIOl~ 3~°°~'°~oo oo ~0000~00~ 0 O0 O0 O0 0 0 0 0 0 ~-I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ?? -.'t ,,4' ,4>'-O 00~00 00 000000 ,l~,, 0 ~00~1~ ~0~ 000000~ 000000 0000~0~ 00~ 00 001 ooo~ ~q,ooo~. o~ ~o ~ January 17, 1990 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 14) 8'7 Mr. Bowerman asked if it is legal to have graduated tax rates on personal property. Mr. Agnor said he did not think it was against law. Mr. Bain said the Board had talked about that possibility a year ago. Mr. Bowerman felt that might be a way to get additional revenue. Mrs. Humphris agreed that this is a tax that can be related more directly to income. Mr. Bowerman said he was not suggesting how it should be done, but he would like to study the possibility of a graduated system. Mr. Bowie said if it is legal, it is an excellent idea. He felt that any tax that relates to the ability to pay is more equitable. Mr. Bain asked if a motion is necessary for staff to proceed with imple- menting the split collection of taxes. Mr. Agnor said he assumed that the adoption of the CIP includes split tax collection. The Board agreed. Mrs. Humprhis pointed out that in looking at the salary scale survey figures, it seems the largest discrepancies are in the areas of engineering, accounting, and technical. She said maybe only these categories should be considered. Mr. Agnor said that analysis is done every three years and individual adjustments made to reflect the market. He said if the discrepancy is glaringly apparent, the adjustment has been made in between as well. Mr. Bowie said there has to be more sophisticated methods of managing the depart- ments. He said giving a deputy county executive or a superintendent of schools a five percent scale adjustment is not going to help keep the secre- taries around longer. Agenda Item No. 5. Executive Session. At 9:50 A.M., motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Bowerman to adjourn into Executive Session for the purposes of discussion specific personnel in accordance with Virginia Code Section 2.1-344.A.1. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Perkins. Mr. Perkins returned at 10:45 A.M. Mr. Way left the Executive Session at 10:50 A.M. Agenda Item No. 6. Certify Executive Session. At 11:03 A.M. the Board reconvened into open session. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Perkins, certifying the Executive Session as set out below. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, and Mr. Perkins. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Way. WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has convened an executive meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative record- ed vote and in accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and WHEREAS, Section 2.1-344.1 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors that such executive meeting was conducted in conformity with Virginia law; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby certifies that, to the best of each member's knowledge, (i) only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the January 17, 1990 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 15) 88 executive meeting to which this certification resolution applies, and (ii) only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening the executive meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors. Agenda Item No. 7. Appointments. Mr. Bowie said the Board would conduct interviews at lunch on February 14 for the vacancy on the Piedmont Virginia Community College Board. Agenda Item No. 8. Adjourn. With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 11:08 A.M. CHAIRMAN