Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-04-06 specialApril 6, 1988 (Special Called Meeting) (Page 1) A special meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held at 1:00 P.M., April 6, 1988, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. PRESENT: Messrs. Edward H. Bain, Jr., F. R. Bowie, C. Timothy Lindstrom (arrived at 1:05 P.M.), Walter F. Perkins and Peter T. Way. ABSENT: Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; Deputy County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr.; Administrative Assistant, Roxanne White; Superintendent of Schools, N. Andrew Overstreet; Assistant Superintendent, David Papenfuse; Assistant Superintendent, John English; and, Director of Personnel, Carole A. Hastings. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 1:05 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Way. Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence. Agenda Item No. 4. Work Session: 1988-89 County Budget: School Division, N. Andrew Overstreet. Mr. Overstreet addressed the Board and directed the Board's attention to a document dated March, 1987, and entitled "Career Path Cost Projections". He explained that the projections were based upon the following conditions: the current number of teachers, which was 640; a three percent annual increase; and no changes in enrollments or programs. The projections did not take into consideration rising enroll- m~s, an increase in the number of teachers and whether a three percent ~.~,?t~al increase would maintain the competitiveness of theisalary structure. b~r. Overstreet then discussed a handout entitled "Teacheri'Salary Cost Projec- tions'' dated April 6, 1988 and said the difference between the projections made in March, 1987 and April, 1988, resulted from the addition of 28.6 teach- ing positions. Mr. Overstreet reminded the Board that the State requires that teachers be given a 7.3 percent increase in each of the next two y~ars. He said the career path cost projections were based on an eight percen~ increase in salary for teachers over the next two years. Mr. Overstreet said reducing the increase this year would mean it would have to be made up next year. In 1988-89, he said, will occur the heavy costs of the caree~ ladder. Beginning next year, teachers on the career ladder will receive the 'stipends for the first time. Mr. Perkins said he thought there was a four-year comparison done last year beginning with the 1986-87 school year. This project%on showed teachers' salaries and fringe benefits under $18 million. Mr. Perkins said Mr. Overstreet is using the higher 1987-88 projection and then~adding the ten percent salary increase to this. He said this is a bad assumption since the State did not mandate a ten percent increase the first yeaC. He said he is disappointed that the selling points of the career ladder program have non been accomplished: reduced cost of stipends, reduced cost of supervisors, among others. Mr. Overstreet said the program had not beg~n yet. Ail the administration has done so far is elevate the base salary..:~ Mr. Perkins said there are teachers who have started the career ladder and ~hey should be assuming some of the supervisory duties. Mr. Overstreet said this was not the chief objective of the career ladder plan; it was just oneiiof the options a teacher might choose. Mr. Overstreet added that there wasi~a 50 percent reduction in Accounts. How the teachers will assume various administrative functions has yet to be determined, Mr. Overstreet said. Me added that it will probably take a year or two of experience to know. A~ the same time, he said, the administration does not want to take the best teachers out of the classroom. Nevertheless, he said, he expects to see the c~sts of administra- tion and coordination decrease after one or two years of o~eration. Mr. Perkins said that is not the way the career ladde~ plan was presented to the Board. He said if the rules of the game have changed this much in the April 6, 1988 (Special Called Meeting) (Page 2) 85 first year, what will happen in the second, the third, the fourth years? Mr. Overstreet replied that lowering the cost of school administration was only one of the justifications for the career ladder plan. He said that the plan has satisfied other expectations, such as reduce the turn-over rate. Mr. Perkins said a 25 percent increase in salary~would decrease the turn-over rate in any occupation. Mr. Overstreet said another objective of the career ladder plan was to give teachers opportunities to advance in their careers without leaving teaching for administration. He said it was also important for the County to keep up with the salaries offered by other localities in order to attract the best teachers. Mr. Bowie said he did not expect the promised decrease in sPending this year; he realized that the career ladder plan is a new .program and it takes time for the benefits of new programs to become apparent. He said he does expect the career ladder plan to save the County money during FY 1988-89, particularly in the area of administrative costs as teachers assume adminis- trative responsibilities such as planning the curriculum. Yet, he continued, every category in the administrative portiontol the Schools budget shows an increase. He said one of the requirements fdr teachers to be in the career ladder plan was increased attendance, yet th~ cost of substitute teachers increases in the FY 1988-89 budget. He said~ihe agrees with Mr. Perkins: he cannot see the benefits this program was supposed to bring to the County. Mr. Overstreet repeated that it was sti~l too early to evaluate the program. The prototypes of the career ladde~ plan operating in the four schools have concentrated on the part of the ~program that deals with evaluat- ing teachers. -il Mr. Perkins said there was a 16 percent~iincrease in the Schools budget for FY 1987-88 and the School Board proposes.la 13 percent increase for FY 1988-89. He said the career ladder plan was~supposed to be a front-loaded program, with most of the expense occurring in the early stages of the program. There should be some sign of costs idropping soon~ Mr. Overstreet replied that if the cost of the 28 additional teaching positions were removed from the budget, the career ladder plan actually cost the County less than was projected. Mr. Overstreet said even if the School Board had decided to give the state-mandated salary increases across t~e board, rather than channeling the increase through the career ladder plan, !~the County would not have experienced any reductions in administrative~icosts. Mr. Perkins again pointed to the projected costs of the career ladder plan. He said the figure should be $17.7 million, not the $20.7 million presented by the School Board. He said if the County had not adopted the career ladder plan, teachers' salaries would!~be $17.7 million, not $20.7 million. ~ Mr. Bowie said something else was left 6ut of Mr. Overstreet's comparison of the career ladder plan and an across-the-board salary increase. He said the state-mandated salary increase equals 1713 percent over a two-year period, 1986-87 and 1987-88. Last year, he said, th& Board funded a 16.9 percent increase in salaries, nearly that amount whidh was requested for the two years. He said Mr. Overstreet assured the Bdard that the career ladder plan would bring the County up to the state-mandated level. This has not happened, he added. Mr. Overstreet replied that the eRtra 6.9 percent for salary increases in the Schools budget was intended ito raise the base salary. The emphasis in the budget for salaries this yea~ was to increase the base salary. He said the state will not let the County use the excess in last year's funding for salaries to fund this year's mandated increase. He does not recall telling the Board that the 16.9 perce~it increase would take care of the state requirements. Mr. Bowie said Mr. Over~treet told the Board that the career ladder plan would meet the anticipated state requirements. Mr. Overstreet said he meant that the state-mandated salary increase could be met in any one of a number of ways, that the increase need not take the form of an across-the-board raise in salaries, and that~ian alternative, such as the career ladder plan, could be used instead to'!sat~sfy the state requirements. He was told that as long as teachers received an average of a ten percent increase in salary, the State would be satis{ied with the plan Mr. Charles Tolbert, Chairman of the Scliool Board, said he does not understand Mr. Perkins's problem with the difference in teachers' salaries between 1986-87 and 1987-88. There are more~ 86 April 6, 1988 (Special Called Meeting) (Page 3) teachers this year than last, so it's going to cost more. Were it not for this increase in the number of teachers, he said, the figures the School Board presented to the Board this year would be the same as those presented last year. Mr. Overstreet then asked if there were any questions on the information presented to the Board concerning the comparisons between the operating budgets for FY 1986-87, FY 1987-88 and FY 1988-89. Mr. Bowie said he has received letters and phone calls from citizens who are concerned about a reduction in funds for vocational training. Judging from the data presented by the School Board, he said, there seems to have been no reduction in funds for vocational training. Mr. Overstreet said that was true, and the School Board plans to increase the funding for its vocational education program next year. Mr. Lindstrom asked how the vocational education program tied into the Charlottesville-Albemarle Technical Education Center (CATEC). Mr. Overstreet said most of the trade programs, such as masonry, auto-meehanics, and elec- tronics, are housed at CATEC. He said CATEC had undergon9 some changes, dropping training programs for occupations for which there is no demand in the market. Other training programs are then introduced which may prove more attractive to employers. Mr. Lindstrom said there is a lot of concern that the programs at CATEC are not up to par, particularly in the training for the building trades. He asked why the School Board had not increased the funding in two years for CATEC in the face of an increasing demand for its services. Mr. Overstreet said CATEC was funded with matching funds ~rom the State and the State had not increased its share. He said some of the school fund balance was applied to this fund as well. ~ Mr. Way asked if there were any questions concerningilithe memorandum Mr. Overstreet had prepared in response to the Board's questions on March 25, 1988. Mr. Bowie said he appreciated the effort Mr. Overs~reet and his col- leagues put into this memorandum. Mr. Lindstrom said he ~ad a problem with the report: there was too much verbiage and not enough figures..;. Question after question, he said, was answered without using any n~bers to explain the increase. He said it is difficult to understand major ine~reases in cost with a breakdown into smaller numbers. The Schools budget, he?aid, has inadver- tently become as Byzantine and riddled with ways to hide money as the budget for the Department of Defense. He said he supports education and has voted for increases in taxes to fund the Schools budget. Nevertheless, he must account to the public for the $10 million increase to the!Schools budget over the past two years and there is no way to do this when th~ budget is so complicated. Moreover, he said, this increase occurred while, the enrollment increased only four percent and inflation only five perce~t. Mr. Lindstrom added he had no problem with the career ladder; he understood that this is still in its infancy and the County could not expect to p~ofit from all the benefits so soon. Nevertheless, he said, there are several millions of dollars expended in the Schools budget in ways he does no~ understand. The Schools budget has become so complicated that no one, except for a handful of people, understand it. He feels forced to say there must ~e more cuts in the Schools budget because he just does not feel the increases were justified, or even explained. ~ Mr. Overstreet asked for the opportunity to clarify ,,y questions Mr. Lindstrom might have. Mr. Lindstrom replied that he had a; question on nearly every one of the sixty responses in Mr. Overstreet's memorandum. Mr. Bowie said what concerns him most is the reason fbr a ten million dollar increase in funding when the enrollment has risen o~ly four percent. He added that the different formats used for the Schools bbdget w~re confus- ing; some of them did not even include totals. He said in~reases in some categories were justified by claiming items were moved fro~ other categories, yet, when the first category was examined, there was no corresponding decrease. In response to Mr. Lindstrom, Mr. Bain commented that, S6.2 million of th~ the $10 million increase was spent in the category Instructional Teachers Salaries. Mr. Lindstrom said this category contained much more than teachers' salaries and that worries him. April 6, 1988 (Special Called Meeting) (Page 4) 87 Mr. Way says he has always supported the School's budget. This year, however, he believes the budget can be reduced by $2.5 million without affect- ing the quality of education in the County. He will vote for this reduction; he will not vote to increase the tax rate. Mr. Bain said he would support a reduction in the School budget of $750,000. He will not support funding at the level of the County Executive's recommendation. If the Board will not fund something because its members do not understand all the details, he said, that says the Board has no confidence in the ability of the School Board and School staff to administer County schools. He believes the Board should rely on the expertise of School administrators. The State will not increaseits funding for County schools; if the County wants to keep up with increases in enrollment and competitive salaries for teachers, then it simply must spend more money. Mr. Lindstrom said he would vote for a ten cent tax increase today if the School Board had presented an adequate rationale for the increase in requested funding. He just does not feel that the explanations given justify an increase in the tax rate. He said the combination of the reduction in the tax rate and enthusiasm over the career ladder obscured other increases in the budget. He supports the recommendation of the County Executive. Mr. Bowie said most of the people who spoke at the public hearing on the School budget were concerned that funds for individual schools would be reduced. He said of the $1,400,000 appropriated by the Board for individual schools in FY 1987-88, only $1,300,000 reached the actual school. Funding for individual schools was not reduced this year;linstead, it increased by about $400,000. The Board can do nothing about this; after appropriating the funds, the Board must leave how the money will be spent to the School Board. He added there is a problem when it becomes less!expensive to send a child to private school than to public school in the C~unty. Even with a $2.5 million reduction in the School budget, it still raises the yearly cost of educating one student from $3700 to almost $4400. (Note: At 2:20 P.M., the Board recesse~']and reconvened at 2:39 P.M.) County Executive's Office, Guy B. Agnor,,~Jr. Mr. Way asked if any of the Board members wished to respond to Mr. Agnor'§ memorandum dated April 1, 1988, in which the County Executive answered questidns asked by the Board at its March 25, 1988, work session. With regard to the Information Brochure and the telephone message operat- ing system requested by the County Executive, Mr. Way said he felt funding for these items could be delayed. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mr. Lindstrom that line items 300601, printing and copy services to produce the brochure; 520303, the telephone message system operating costs; and, 700100, equipment for the new telephone system, be deleted. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bowie, Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: Mr. Bain. ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke. I~gal Services. Mr. Agnor said this was ~$cheduled for discussion during executive session at the next Board meeting. Finance Department. Motion was offered b!y Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mr. Bain to accept the recommendation of the County Executive and reduce funding for the category of membership dues and subscriptions by $1000. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowie, Lindstrom, Perkinsiand Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke. 88 April 6, 1988 (Special Called Meeting) (Page 5) Shelter for Help in Emergency (S~E). Mr. Lindstrom had asked if there were any adjustment in revenues or expenditures not reflected in the budget information submitted to the County. Mr. Agnor said SHE has submitted a revised financial data sheet (on file in the Clerk's office), but that this sheet did not affect the recommendation of the County Executive. Mr. Lindstrom had also suggested that the staff add a note to the funding applica- tion forms to emphasize the importance of reporting all revenue received by an agency. Mr. Agnor said staff suggests the following language: "Note: Agencies receiving public funds from the County must be mindful of the public's trust in management of these ,funds. Ail anticipated revenues projected for your agency must be reported, failure to do so may jeopardize future funding of your agency. Jefferson Area Board on Aging (JABA). Mr. Agnor said JABA requested a six percent cost-of-living increase for their Home Delivered Meals, Home Safety and Adult Day Care Programs rather than the level funding recommended by the Program Review Committee. Mr. Agnor said the staff recommended a 4.5 percent increase rather than the six percent in order to remain consistent with the General Government's estimate of the cost-of-living increase. A 4.5 percent increase would add $8,805 to JABA's request. The Board should be mindful, Mr. Agnor said, that JABA was recommended for level funding due to a low score on the Program Review Application. If JABA receives the increase, the two other agencies that were level funded (Madison House and RSVP) should be reconsidered for a cost-of-living increase also. Mr. Agnor said staff does not recommend funding the cost-of-living increase for Home! Delivered Meals, Home Safety and Adult Day Care programs. Mr. Agnor said JABA also requested a 143 percent inc=ease in their transportation allocation. The requested 143 percent increase reflects an increase in the County's share of transportation costs fr~ 17 to 34 percent. While the Program Review Committee recommended a 25 percent increase over current funding to offset JAUNT's 25 percent fare increase~, staff does not feel JABA justified increasing the County's allocation fo~ this service from 17 to 34 percent. · Finally, Mr. Agnor said, JABA requested that staff reconsider the Adult Day Care program in Esmont by providing a scholarship for ?ne Esmont resident at the Adult Care Center in Charlottesville for two days p~er week at a cost of $6,250. In discussing this further with JABA, staff was p~ovided with infor- mation which justifies the provision of a satellite adult day care site at Esmont. This approach would serve ten residents for two d~ys per week at a cost of $9,329. The cost is lower due to the cost of tranBportation from Esmont to Charlottesville, which would reduce the number o~ residents which could be served. This will bring JABA's overall budget inhrease to 21 percent above last year's appropriation. ~ Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Bogie to accept the recommendation of the County Executive and increase JABA's:'~funding by $9329 for a total of $60,175. There was no further discussion. ~Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowie, Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke. ~ Jefferson Area United Transportation (JAUNT). Mr. Agnor said JAUNT was requested to provide the cost of the additional subsidy if}the fare for the handicapped was lowered to $1.50 throughout the urban areaiand within rural fare sectors. JAUNT provided the following information: : April 6, 1'988 (Special Called Meeting) (Page 6) 89 "First Year Second Year Lower fare to $1.50 to all handicapped riders in urban ring (in addition to the costs of lowering fare to all those within one-quarter mile of the bus route). $1300 $2000 The urban ring costs would be rather small; most of JAUNT's riders live near CTS bus routes. JAUNT would prefer a uniform fare through- out the urban ring. Having one fare for those on the bus route and another for those who are not would further complicate an already confusing system." Mr. Tucker said reducing the fare to $1.50 for all handicapped County residents would add $13,000 to the original request of $10,800, which would have lowered fares for the handicapped living near the bus routes. Mr. BoWie said in providing the already low fares for handicapped riders, the County was performing a service it would be difficult to find elsewhere. He said the $1.50 - $2.50 rates the handicapped pay are already significantly lower than the $4.00 - $12.00 paid by other County residents. He said he does not understand why a further reduction is necessary. Mr. Lindstrom said JAUNT followed the fare structure recommended to them by their consultant, except for in the urban hrea, where JAUNT charged a slightly higher rate to conciliate private t~ansportation companies. The consultant had recommended charging only $1.00 for handicapped riders in the urban area. It would cost $12,100 to lower the fare to $1.50 for handicapped riders in the entire urban area. Mr. Lindstrbm said he supports this request. Mr. Lindstrom moved that JAUNT be funded~ian additional $1,300 to cover the cost of lowering the fare to $1.50 for all handicapped riders in the urban area. Mr. Bowie seconded the motion. There~as no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowie, Lindstrom, Perki~ and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke. Youth Service Center and Outreach Co~ns~ling. In response to an earlier question from Mr. Lindstrom, Mr. Agnor said 68 of the 80 students in the Outreach Counseling program stayed in school..i Mr. Agnor then explained what was involved in transferring funds from the Outreach counseling program to the Youth Service Center. He said the State imposed a limit on the funds it would provide for this program. If the County contributes funds to the Youth Service Center, the City will have to contribute less in order not to exceed the amount the State will match. If the City~!contributes less, it will receive fewer services. Mr. Agnor said half Of the money contributed by both the City and County will fund the counseling service; the other half goes toward the research and coordinating activites which the Program Review Committee did not recommend funding. Granted~i he said, if the County contrib- utes to the Youth Service Center, it will ben,fit from the matching State funds, but only half of the funds will go toward the counseling program. On the other hand, funding the counseling program through Outreach insures that all the money goes toward counseling. Mr. Ag~or said City representatives did not wish to see the services provided to them ~y the Youth Service Center diminished; County representatives did not wa~ to pay for services they did not want; and, Outreach representatives did not want to see their funding cut. He suggested that the Board follow the origin~l recommendation of the Program Review Committee and fund Outreach Counselingj$18,000 and the Youth Service Center -$0-. The Board agreed with this recommendation. United Way Child Care Scholarship Progr~. At the last Board meeting, Mr. Bowie asked how the funding for the Unite~ Way Child Care Scholarship Program could be tied to the Social Services D~partment of the County. Mr. Agnor said the Social 9O April 6, 1988 (Special Called Meeting) (Page 7) Services Department will refer ADC clients in need of child care to United Way directly and track the funding and future needs of these clients during FY 1988-89. Parks and Recreation. At the last Board meeting, several members of the Board questioned the increases in the budget for Parks and Recreation over that of FY 1986-87. Mr. Agnor said one of the reasons for this increase was bad weather. Actual expenditures are less than budgeted when inclement weather closes the lakes, and lifeguards and cashiers are' released early. Being hourly employees, they are not paid when they are not working. Mr. Agnor said $174,785 was budgeted in FY 1986-87; $153,472 was expended. A second reason for the increase, Mr. Agnor said, is a raise in salary proposed for 110 part-time employees in order to meet the salaries offered by the City and private employers. Seventy-two of the 110 employees are lifeguards, gym supervisors and recreation leaders being paid $4.50 per hour, recommended to go to $4.84 per hour. Twelve employees are cashiers, whose salaries are recommended to increase from $4.30 to $4.61 per hour. The estimated cost of increasing the salaries for part-time employees is $21,000. Mr. Agnor said a third reason for the increase in the Parks and RecreationS, budget is the assumption of grounds maintenance at the Court Square Building and the County Office Building, which added $2945 to the department budget. The following new programs also contributed to the increase by about $20,000: an extended swimming season, therapeutic summer playground program, Adult Day Care, the Greenwood Arts and Crafts Fair, an overnight camping program for the mentally retarded, and the Senior Nutrition Program at Carver Center. Mr. Way said the Senior Nutrition program was not a n~ew program. Mr. Tucker said this was the first year it was funded through~i.the Parks and Recreation budget. Mr. Lindstrom said there was a difference of $146,000 between the actual budget for Parks and Recreation in FY 1986-87 and the recdmmended budget for the department in FY 1988-89. After the increases mentioned by Mr. Agnor, he said, there is still an increase of $81,000 unaccounted for. Mr. Agnor said there was an error in the cost of raising the salaries for part-time employees. Instead of $21,000, this would cost $48,000. He said there was also $13,759 set aside for performance awards which was not a part of the FY 1986-87 departmental budget. In the Operating ~ccounts, there is an $11,300 increase for instructors, which is a result of the increased salary for part-time employees. Because these positions are contractual, rather than salaried, they were included under the operations portiontol the budget. Mr. Way asked what Parks and Recreation paid part-time high school and college students. Mr. Agnor replied $4.84 for laborers a~d $4.60 for cash- iers. Mr. Way said he did not understand why salaries muJ~ be increased for students because they do not work long enough to build up ~ny expertise. Mr. Tucker said the increase was recommended to stay competit~Me with the City. Mr. Bowie asked if Parks and Recreation participated in the Summer Youth Employment Program. Mr. Tucker said the department partickpated in this program but he did not know to what extent. Mr. Bowie sai~ this program provided jobs to youth and the federal government paid their wages. He said County taxpayers pay for this program and should benefit f~om it. He asked that Mr. Tucker investigate this further. ~ Planning. Mr. Agnor said the budget for this departmgnt increased from that of FY 1986-87 for the following reasons: Personnel costs increased by $3100 due to revisions in the Pay and Classification Plan,ilfunding the Perfor- mance Award program through the department rather than a centralized fund, adding the dental insurance program, and the occurrence ofi.~savings due to attrition in FY 1986-87. Operating costs increased 1.6 percent due to the necessity of hiring outside engineers to study road alignments and costs for the Comprehensive Plan, the contract services required to 6omplete the record- ing of old Planning Commission minutes, and the costs of p~inting the revised Comprehensive Plan in 1988-89. Accounting for the above c~anges, Mr. Agnor said, the department's total budget increased one-half percent from 1986-87. April 6, 1988 (Special Called Meeting) (Page 8) 91 Honticello Area Co...,,~nity Action Agency. At the last meeting, Mr. Bowie asked how many of the students in last year's Summer Youth Employment Academic Reinforcement Program were still in school. Mr. Agnor said the three County students in the program are still in school with good grades. Volumteer Fire Departments and Rescue Squads. At the last meeting, Mr. Perkins asked staff to contact the VPI Cooperative Extension Service to determine if they could provide the consultant services requested for the volunteer fire departments and rescue squads. Mr. Agnor said staff has discussed the matter with the local extension agents and they will contact the appropriate VPI offices who could possibly aid the County in this report. Mr. Agnor said the Extension Service could provide this consultant service for a lot less than the $25,000 requested by the volunteer fire departments and rescue squads. He suggested that the Board place $25,000 in a contingency fund and draw from this amount whatever the Extension Service might need for expenses. Mr. Way said he is concerned that the current method of allocating funds to the individual fire departments and rescue squads may not be fair. He said the study may take a year. If it determines that some fire departments and rescue squads need more money, the Board mayl.not be able to appropriate this money in time. Mr. Agnor agreed that the study must be complete by October or November, 1988 in order for staff to incorporate the recommendations into the budget for FY 1989-90. He said the Board could use the $25,000 contingency funds to supplement funding for the fire departments and rescue squads while the study is being completed. Jefferson Madison Regiomal Library. Mr. Agnor said the City has reversed its decision and decided to fund the Historical Collection of the Albemarle County Historical Society Museum for 1988-89.~. He recommends that the Board reconsider funding the Historical Collection,~:which would cost the County $11,819. This would be used to fund one position in the Library staff. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Bowie to appropriate $11,819 for the Library's Historical Collection. There was no further discus- sion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowie, Lindstrom, PerkinS and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke. Revised Budget for the Health Depare~emt~ Mr. Agnor said the Health Department requests an additional $25,584 from the County. He added that the Health Department requested an additional $30j000 from the City; half of which was funded. Mr. Tucker said the City granted~a 12 percent increase to the Health Department. Were the County to do the same, the amount would equal $16,244. Mr. Bowie asked if this money couldlbe.appyopriated later. Mr. Agnor replied "yes", the funds could be carried/~n~gency fund and allocated later. At Mr. Bowie's suggestion, the Board decided to delay appropriation of the additional funds for the Health Department Mr. Way asked if any Board member wished ito comment on any other aspect of the FY 1988-89 budget. Mr. Lindstrom commented that the format of the School budget made tracking actual and planned expenditures difficult. He asked how much of this format was dictated to the Schools by the State. Could the Schools, he asked, determine in which category a line item should fall, or did the State decide this? Mr. Agnor replied that the State Department of Education determined what the categories would be and which line items would be included in each category. Mr. Bowie adde~ that some of the line items occur in more than one category. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the staff could work with the State Education Department and the County School Board to bring about a more comprehensible budget format. Mr. Agnor said Mr. Overstreet recently told him the School Board planned to ask the Darden School of Business at the University of Virginia to create a new budget format to help the School Board with financial management. Mr. Agnor said thel County had the resources to help the School Board come up with a better budget format. 92 April 6, 1988 (Special Called Meeting) (Page 9) Mr. Ray Jones addressed the Board and said something similar was happen- ing with the Auditor of Public Accounts and the School budget. He said five years ago a task force was formed which included the State Secretary of Education, the State Superintendent of Education and the Auditor's office. This task force was to investigate the possibility of having a standard formal for School budgets across the State. He said there was to be a new format fo~ budgets that would go into effect July 1, 1989. Mr. Bain agreed that the budget was convoluted but said he felt the increases were justified if one examined the budget category by category. Considering the limited amount of time, he said, the School Board provided well-documented responses to the Board's request for additional information. In the case of the FY 1986-87 Schools budget, Mr. Bowie said, actual expenditures were under the amount budgeted in many categories. For example, he said, one maintenance item was budgeted at $17,000; only $5000 was spent. He said every category marked "staff" showed an increase, while items relatin to the school buildings and maintenance decreased. He believed that the County should try to meet the educational needs of the students, not those of the staff. He said the School Board must learn to manage the funds they receive, instead of spending everything they get and then asking for more. Mr. Lindstrom said he had three problems with the S6~hool budget. He sai~ one work session was not enough time for the Board to review the School budget with the care it deserved. The second problem, he said, lies in the format oJ the School budget: it is not the size of the increase that bothers him, but the impossibility of tracing the increases category by category and discover- ing just where they occur in the budget and why they occBr. Thirdly, he said he has lost the trust he once had in the information preRented by the School Board, largely due to the inexperience of several new School Board members. He said this problem may take care of itself as these ne~ members grow more experienced. The first two problems, however, the Board ~must work with the staff and the School Board to resolve. ~ Mr. Way said it was beginning to seem a waste of the~ Board's time to provide the School Board with estimates of the increases .the Board thinks are reasonable. Judging from the increases the School Board ~requests, he said, the Board's suggestions are ignored. Mr. Bowie said some of the School Board members told him they never received the information. Mr. Agnor said he thought the Board and the School Board should discuss the budget schedule. For the past three years, he said, ~he School Board has been late providing its budget to him and his staff, thus denying the staff the time needed for a careful review. Mr. Lindstrom suggested that a work session be scheduled with the School Board to discuss the general problems of timing and the budget format. Mr. Perkins said he was concerned about using carryover money to fund this year's School budget. He does not think this is sound financial plan- ning. Mr. Agnor agreed and said usually carryover money funds one-time expenditures. He said one year would not ruin the County, but he would not like to see this practice continue year after year. Mr. Lindstrom pointed out that the decrease in State funding which necessitated the'use of carryover funds may very well continue year after year. (Note: Mr. Bowie left the meeting at 4:43 P.M. and ~eturned at 4:46 P.M.). Mr. Bowie said he received a report on the year's spending to date from the School Board. He said the School Board would have to indulge in a spend- ing frenzy to avoid having a surplus of several hundred t~ousand dollars at the end of this fiscal year. Mr. Bain pointed out that s~me of the funds tha' have not been expended may already be encumbered. ~ Agenda Item No. 6. Order Advertisement of Public Hearing on 1988-89 County Budget. Mr. Agnor recommended that the adoption dRte of the County budget be before May 1, 1988, in order to protect the County from possible challenges. He suggested that the public hearing be scheduled during the third week of April and the budget adopted seven days the=eafter, during the last week of April, 1988. April 6, 1988 (Special Called Meeting) (Page 10) 9¸3 Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mr. Lindstrom to set the public hearing on the 1988-89 County Budget for 7:30 P.M. April 19, 1988. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowie, Lindstrom, Perkims and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke. Agenda Item No. 5. Set Tax Rates for 1988. Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins and seconded by Mr. Bowie that the tax rates to be advertised for FY 1988-89 remain the same as those of FY 1987-88. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: Messrs. Bowie, Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: Mr. Bain. ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke. Agenda Item No. 7. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Board and Public. Mr. Ray Beard, owner and manager of the Cedar Hill Mobile Home Park, addressed the Board. He asked that the Board reconsider its rejection of the Board of Zoning Appeal's (BZA) approval of his variance proposal on January 12, 1988. For the past four years, he said, he has tried and failed to get approval for 27 additional mobile home spaces. When he bought the Park nine years ago, there was a permit issued by the Cdunty allowing 170 spaces for mobile homes on this 26-acre property. A County representative told him that permit was useless and the time allotted for a grandfather clause had lapsed on that permit. He has reduced his request fpom 170 spaces to 102. He now has 75 spaces allotted for mobile homes on his property and he would like to add 27 more. The County requires that lots b~ 4500 square feet; the lots he proposes would be 6500 square feet. He says ~e has only one public utility, water. He realizes that since there is only one utility, the County Code states that the lots must be 40,000 square feet. He said this requirement is [ous for a trailer park; no one wants t~ rent an acre. He said the BZA agreed and lowered the requirement from 40,00H square feet to 6000 square feet. He proffered agreement to hook up to the County sewer when it became available and to set aside additional space four drainfields. He asked that the Board reconsider its denial and allow him~to add some spaces for low low- · ncome housing. In the absence of the sewer line, Mr. Lindstrom said, the Board had no choice but to adhere to the principles of the'.Zoning Ordinance. He said the BZA does not have the authority to adopt changes to the Ordinance. He does not wish to set a precedent of approving lots ~hat small with only one public utility. Mr. Bowie said he would like to review the BZA decision. Mr. Way sug- gested that this matter be discussed in executive session. At 5:08 P.M, motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mr. Bain that the Board enter executive session to discuss legal matters. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowie, Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke. Agenda Item No. 8. Adjourn. At 7:29 P.Mi, the Board reconvened into open session and immediately adjourned.