Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-03-20 BudgetMarch 20, 2002 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting) (Page 1) An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on March 20, 2002, at 1:30 p.m., Room 235, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. This meeting was adjourned from March 18, 2002 PRESENT: Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Mr. Charles S. Martin, Mr. Walter F. Perkins, Mr. Dennis S. Rooker and Ms. Sally H. Thomas. ABSENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W. Davis, Clerk, Ella W. Carey, Assistant County Executive, Tom Foley, Assistant County Executive, Roxanne W. White, and, Budget Director, Roger Hildebeidel. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 1:40 p.m., by the Chairman, Ms. Thomas. _______________ Agenda Item No. 2. Work Session: FY 2002-2003 County Operating Budget Capital Improvements Program (CIP). Mr. Hildebeidel said he would make a slide presentation of the Capital Budget and the amend- ments proposed to the CIP by staff. He reminded the Board that the Countys long-term Capital Invest- = ment Strategy is to increase the General Fund transfer to the Capital Program and to Debt Service each year by the rate of total revenue growth. This dedicates an additional half-point of operating budget growth to the Capital Fund, and one cent of the tax rate to Capital Debt Service. Mr. Hildebeidel said that last year the Board went to a Biennial CIP process where a full-blown analysis of the CIP is done only every other year. Last year was total review and analysis year, and this year is an interim year in the planning cycle involving only a streamlined review of urgent or emergency projects and updated cost estimates for current five-year CIP projects. The major FY 03-07 CIP amendments have > been reviewed by the CIP Technical Committee. Mr. Hildebeidel said the approved FY 02-06 CIP totaled $113.1 million. The Schools received the > largest portion of this money at 57 percent. He said the proposed amended FY 03-07 CIP totals $109.2 > million, with the Schools receiving 41 percent of the total. In order to be considered, a project had to meet the definition of a critical need, i.e., be an immediate health and/or safety requirement; be urgent time A@ wise because matching funds might be lost; be a Federal or state mandate; or, be a public policy established by the Supervisors or by the School Board. He said this latter created some interesting issues. For instance, the School Board established a Strings Program which caused the need for an additional classroom at three middle schools. Mr. Hildebeidel said Mr. Perkins and Mr. Dorrier were part of the group who attended some of the Technical Review Committee meetings. He said the other criteria used were to reflect updated cost calculations based on better information; reflect a change for an existing approved project; or, a change was required because of decreased revenue projections. He said that last year the CIP projected the cost of projects at $103.9 million. Since completion of the amendments, that figure had been increased to $109.2 million. Mr. Hildebeidel said on the General Operating side of the CIP, there were several amendments proposed by the Technical Committee. First, the Juvenile & Domestic Relations Court renovations will be the only Court project shown during the FY 03-07 time period. > Mr. Rooker asked if there will be additional expenditures for the Courts, but the costs are just not known at this time. Mr. Hildebeidel said it is assumed there will be no additional court costs in this time period; that project will go into the next five-year period. Mr. Tucker said it is possible that the cost will go out ten to fifteen years. This particular renovation project should take care of needs for the next five years. Mr. Hildebeidel said concerning the Public Safety Facility, there has been a consultant study and a more detailed analysis of space requirements. Based on that study, the estimate for the five-year period has increased by almost $7.0 million. Mr. Rooker asked what this project encompasses. Mr. Foley said this will be a facility for the Police Department and Fire/Rescue Department. There is a long-term space study being done for the entire County. Based on that study the best location will be determined: no site has been determined. Mr. Martin asked if the idea of having a facility near Ivy and one to the north of town has been dropped. He asked if there is another study taking place at this time. He thought the Board had decided that Ivy would be the next location. Mr. Foley said the public safety facility is basically a government building to hold fire/rescue and police staff outside of the County Building on McIntire Road. He said any proposal would go the Building Committee for review. Hopefully, staff will have some firm proposal to talk about this coming summer. Mr. Dorrier said there has also been discussion of having satellite offices. Mr. Foley said that issue is being looked at by the long-term space committee; it is being studied now. Staff is trying to hold these two projects and run them together so the Board can make a decision on the whole master plan approach. March 20, 2002 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting) (Page 2) Mr. Rooker said the estimated cost in this CIP period was $4.5 million and that has now been increased by $7.0 million. He asked what consultant study says it will cost 200 percent more than what was originally estimated. Mr. Foley said the cost is based on staffing projections, as well as overall program needs for public safety. It is based on the size of the facility without land costs. Concerning the significant change in overall costs, a figure was put in the CIP over five years ago and there were no space projections to back up that figure. Since that time, staff has changed procedures to be sure estimates are much closer to reality. Mr. Dorrier asked if Chief John Miller could speak about what his department needs in the way of space. Chief Miller said in 1992, a project was put into the CIP. Since then there has been assessment of current needs as well as twenty-five years into the future. Using that information the projected population for Albemarle County, there is now a different figure. Mr. Foley said space needs are based on the Countys standard of having 1.25 officers per 1000 people. The fire departments are going through = significant changes, so projecting staff there is a little more challenging. Staff is trying to determine when the first phase of this project would be built. Mr. Hildebeidel said the third project considered was the Northside Library where the costs have been updated by $1.5 million based on a consultants study. He said this project is at the end of the five- = year cycle so this is just a preliminary phase. Project No. 4 is replacement of the court surface on the Towe Park Tennis Courts. This is a safety issue, and the cost has increased by about $8000. Project No. 5 is for improvements at the Scottsville Community Center where the cost estimate has been increased by $75,000. Project No. 6 is a new project and adds a total of $250,000 ($50,000 per year from FY 03 > through FY 07) as the Countys contribution to construction of the new SPCA Animal Shelter. >= Ms. Thomas said the Board has not held an in-depth discussion of this project recently. Personally, since the SPCA people are building a beautiful, state-of-the-art building for which they made plans and started construction before requesting funds from the Board, she is not eager to get involved. She said staff met with SPCA people, but this recommendation comes as a change from what was heard during the year. Mr. Foley said that last Monday, there was discussion about the new funding formula for the SPCA. There was also discussion about the capital request which was originally $750,000 from both the City and the County. Staff talked to other localities to determine a cost if the City and County had to build a facility themselves. Based on what would need to be done to take care of state mandates concerning animals, staff developed a cost of $500,000 for a building to house the number of animals being housed. That is how staff got to the figure of $250,000 for both the City and the County. Staff recognizes that this Board had some concerns. Mr. Martin said that might be an idea to discuss at a future meeting. He has had constituents who asked about the SPCA, and he would like to be able to furnish them with some good information as to the Countys involvement. = Ms. Thomas said the Board can discuss this in the future. It sounds like it is a proposal the Board has agreed to, and as described, it sounds reasonable. Mr. Rooker asked if the City has agreed to the same dollar amount. Mr. Tucker said staff approached this question from the standpoint of what the County and City would have to do to meet state requirements if the SPCA was not involved. That is how they arrived at this projected cost. Obviously, the SPCA went off and designed something much more elaborate than required by the state, but staff did not feel it was the City or Countys responsibility to help pay for that facility. The Board has not agreed to it, and = Council has not agreed to it, so it is not a done deal, . per se A@ Mr. Martin said he agrees with Ms. Thomas. He thinks the Board has the time to get a final update on this project before it votes on the CIP. Mr. Tucker said staff will provide that information soon Mr. Hildebeidel said Project No. 7 is the addition of $99,500 to FY 03 for upgrades to the Countys >= Technology Upgrade - GIS so that maps and graphics can be displayed, and so Internet usage of parcel mapping can be supported. Ms. Thomas said she knows it will take many years before the GIS system holds everything it should hold. She asked if after spending this $99,500, the Countys tax maps be on the = GIS system. Mr. Hildebeidel said this money will pay for some basic hardware and software to be able to manipulate information and post it to the Internet. There is still more work to be done to get the data describing all the different areas into the system. Mr. Dorrier asked if this is being integrated with the Clerks update of land records. He thinks it = would be a mistake to have one system mutually exclusive from the other system. Mr. Hildebeidel said the two systems can be brought together so that people can go to one portal of entry, look at a map, look at parcel data, and if they wanted to see the actual image of the deed or the survey, they would be able to do so through the same portal. Mr. Dorrier asked if there is oversight so the Clerk cannot buy a system that does not integrate with the Countys system. Mr. Hildebeidel said they are working together. Mr. Dorrier = asked who is coordinating this. Mr. Cilimberg said it is being done out of the Planning Department by Mr. Tex Weaver, along with many other GIS applications. They are in the middle of a very big project digitizing parcels which will be completed this summer. Then land records will be tied to the same system. There are an unknown number of layers in the GIS system. One of their projects is for web-based access to the people on the outside. GIS is always evolving. Mr. Martin said he would like to have an update, a general overview of technology projects the near future. Mr. Hildebeidel said Project No. 8 is a new project and adds $80,000 to County Facilities March 20, 2002 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting) (Page 3) Maintenance in FY 03 for renovation of the County Office Building elevators ($50,000), and a Master Plan > for all County Facilities Maintenance ($30,000). It would link into GIS to help decide how to better schedule and manage the cost of maintaining County facilities. Mr. Dorrier asked why the elevator cost is so high. Mr. Hildebeidel said the plan is to replace the existing elevators. Ms. Thomas asked if there is a problem with the elevators. Mr. Tucker said they are outdated and are out of service quite often. Staff also needs to be sure they are safe. Mr. Hildebeidel said there were some projects which were not recommended for this amendment of the CIP. 1) Construction of the Crozet Branch Library being advanced from FY 2011 to FY 2006 was >> not recommended. Also it was proposed that $100,000+ be put in FY 2006 for baseball field lighting at > Burley Middle School, and that is not recommended. Mr. Hildebeidel said that amendments to the Schools CIP are: 1) $40,000 was added in FY 03 for > the Crozet Kitchen project. 2) A new program (Strings Program) causes the need for classrooms at Jouett, Henley and Walton Middle Schools. The School Board switched $1.245 million in FY 02 from construction > of the a new southern elementary school to pay for an addition to Jouett and a strings classroom. 3) The project costs for the Monticello High School addition were updated. This funds additional design work in FY 03 and leaves construction in FY 06. >> Mr. Rooker said there has not been a significant increase in pupil enrollment in the recent past. He asked the assumptions used to decide that space needs to be added to schools, and if there really is a need to add classrooms for the strings program. Mr. Tucker said there has been no recent balloon in A@ enrollment, however, the students are now moving from the elementary schools up to the others so that is the reason for the middle school additions. At Monticello High, they have had trailers for a while and would like to replace them with additional classrooms. Mr. Martin said the Schools have a Long-Range Planning Committee which meets routinely. They readjust their predictions constantly, so he does not think they are way off in their requests. Mr. Tucker said there are liaisons from this Board on the CIP Technical Review Committee, and a School Board member will be added during the next review cycle. Ms. Thomas said if it is a specific question about whether they really need the room for the strings program, she would suggest that the question be directed to the School Board later in this meeting. Mr. Hildebeidel said Project No. 4, Construction of a Southern Elementary School was pushed forward to FY 07. 5) For school site land acquisition, $25,000 was moved from FY 06 to FY 07, and the >>> remaining $1.850 million was moved to the out-years. 6) A new project is the Post-High House at $250,000 in FY 03. This school teaches living skills to post-high school special education students (18 to 21 years > old), and the current leased space has been lost. 7) For Major Maintenance projects, $1.2 million has been added to address health and safety issues in the schools. Mr. Martin said he would like to have more information about the Post-High House. It sounds like a great idea, but he would sure like to ask the School Board about it. Mr. Rooker agreed. He would like to know what they were paying for a lease, and whether it would make sense to lease another facility. Ms. Thomas said she has a concern about Project No. 5, school site land acquisition. She said everybody is still scarred from trying to find a site for what turned out to be Baker-Butler Elementary. She A@ said the Board moved quickly on land costs for Monticello High School, but she thinks the School System feels left out of that decision. That leaves this Board feeling under-appreciated. Even though the new A@ school will not be needed immediately, she hopes there is good planning and communication about what area is being looked at. She said the piece of property needed in FY 07 is not likely to just sit there waiting. > She thinks the Board learned something in the immediate past that shows that even though school construction is being moved into the future, planning still needs to go forward. Mr. Hildebeidel said he did not want to give the impression that the School System had said land acquisition is tied to a new southern elementary school. It is a separate program to advance acquisition of school sites. It is not tied to the southern elementary. Ms. Thomas said she worries about things like the Library and the Police Building spinning the A County into urban sprawl. Mr. Tucker said staff is not looking at sites outside of the Growth Areas for these @ facilities. Ms. Thomas said there is a large growth area, and things could be on the edge of that area and create a different impact. Mr. Dorrier said he thinks there is good reason to look at decentralization of operations. Mr. Tucker said when staff presents the consultants report on this project, it will also give the history of what he recommended back in 1992. Mr. Hildebeidel said there were several other amendments to the School CIP which were not recommended for this cycle because they can be considered again next year when there is more information available: 1) Monticello High School Auditorium; 2) Storage area/warehouse; 3) Western Albemarle High School Auditorium wall; and, 4) advancing construction of Monticello High School addition and separating the gym from that addition. He said the Committee felt there was no pressing need to make decisions on these projects because they are further out in the plan. Mr. Hildebeidel said the Capital projects budget for FY 03 totals $15.825 million, with 61 percent of > March 20, 2002 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting) (Page 4) that total being for the Schools. Of this total, $8.7 million for School projects would be borrowed funds, $1.031 million would be School Pay-as-you-Go funding (The Schools need to address a loss of $200,000 in state school construction grants), $5.519 million is for General Government projects, and, $0.575 million is for Stormwater projects. Next, Mr. Hildebeidel discussed financing of the CIP. He said the policy is to increase the General Fund transfer to the Capital Program and Debt Service each year by the rate of total revenue growth. The past trend has been about a seven percent annual growth. For FY 03, in November of 2002, the estimated > growth was only 4.1 percent due to uncertainty of a deepening economic slowdown, and uncertain effects of the aftermath of September 11th. The dedicated amounts for the CIP and Debt Service were on the 4.1 percent assumption. This has caused the use of some Capital Reserve funds as a means of funding approved projects. Mr. Hildebeidel said the total need for Capital Funds in FY 03 is $6.203 million which includes both > the Schools and General Government. The transfer from the General Fund is $5.520 million which means that $683,000 of the existing Capital Reserve will be needed to funds the CIP. Mr. Rooker asked the amount of the existing reserve. Mr. Hildebeidel said it is at $5.579 million including $1.5 from the FY 01 Fund Balance which still needs to be appropriated into the reserve. There is > the General Fund transfer of $5.520 million with $239,000 from other revenues, making a total of $11.338 million. There are needs of $6,442 million, which would leave $4,896 remaining in the CIP Reserve. Mr. Rooker asked if this is a paper reserve. Mr. Tucker said no, this is actual money which has A@A@ been invested. Mr. Rooker said he has seen other financial reports (not county) where it is only a paper reserve. Mr. Hildebeidel said the Capital Reserve is in the CIP plan to be used for the next four years as a means to adjust for changes in the economy affecting revenue growth. It will also be used for increased Debt Service costs, and it will be used to cushion annual fluctuations in revenues and project costs. He then offered to answer questions. Ms. Thomas asked for an explanation of why the reserve is being used for this year. She is always nervous that the reserve is sitting there and can be dipped into and if the right amount is not put in each A@ year, it wont be available when needed. Mr. Tucker said the 4.1 percent is about the amount of actual = revenues staff felt would be available when the estimates were made last November. Ms. Thomas said she understands that. But she felt the year the reserve would be used would be due to an unusual occurrence. She asked why staff thinks this is a year when the reserve should be used. Ms. White said there is an assumption that the reserve will be used over a period of time because for the extensive capital projects planned, to incur that debt, that debt could not be funded without a tax rate increase unless there were a reserve. The transfer done each year, even though it is being increased each year by the growth of revenue, by the additional half-point of operating budget growth, and by one cent of the tax rate, is not enough for the increasing capital debt payment. It has been planned for the reserve to be used each year. After five years, the reserve does decrease. It is not unusual to plan on using that reserve. Mr. Martin said that even though the reserve is being used each year, there is also a transfer back into that reserve every year. Ms. White said that is correct, but it might not be enough in some of those years to keep the costs from spiking. Ms. Thomas asked if this is a year where there is a spike in those costs. Mr. Hildebeidel said there is a million dollar increase in debt service in this budget. Mr. Martin said all of this is according to what the consultant recommended so the Board would not have to borrow money to do the things needed. The real question is whether or not these revenue projections are still on target. Mr. Tucker said everything is on target. Ms. White said it was not expected that there would always be a large reserve like there is today. Ms. Thomas said the Farm Bureau is always asking the County to live within its means, and she does not think they are considering that there are a lot of capital projects where the money for many is being set aside ahead of time. Ms. White said last year an additional $1.5 million was put into the CIP from the FY 01 Fund Balance. That was not planned, so that additional money helped to build this > reserve. If there is money left at the end of the year, the new policy will keep putting in money to build up the reserve. __________ Issues from Prior Work Session. Mr. Tucker handed out a chart showing all of the additional requests discussed at the work session on Monday. Considering the revenues discussed then, a deficit in recurring funds is evident, but one-time funds are adequate to cover the needs mentioned. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FY 2003 OPERATING BUDGET, MARCH 20, 2002 = County General Fund Recurring One-Time Beginning Board Reserves 405,597 850,000 Less: County Executive Adjustments March 20, 2002 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting) (Page 5) Agency Request - SHE to provide funding increase @ 2.5% 941 MACAA Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program funding 32,656 FICA for Parks & Recreation Summer P-T employees 20,000 Commonwealth Attorney-continue full salary for 1 staff 12,000 Commission on Children & Families 1,766 Adjust Benefits for Senior Planner (1/2 yr) 1,900 Subtotal - Subtract 69,263 -0- Plus County Executive Resource Changes Parks & Recreation Fees Increase (Increase entry fee $1) 35,000 Plus Board of Supervisors Resource Changes Increase vehicle decal fee by $3.50(40% local/60% schools) 262,500 262,500 Increase E-911 surcharge by $0.26 to $1.65 (no Fire Dispatch increase) 159,588 159,588 Provide Tourism funds for ACE/other 450,000 450,000 Subtotal - Add 872,088 422,088 450,000 Subtract School Share of Vehicle Decal Revenues 157,500 Net Ending Reserves 635,922 1,300,000 Recurring One-Time Board of Supervisors Funding Initiatives for Discussion Cost Funding Funding = Increase Compensation by 1.3% (to 3.3%) 295,000 295,000 Administration 1.0 FTE Budget Analyst 1 54,225 52,975 1,250 Public Safety Adjusted request for Regional Jail operations & Op Reserve 152,731 52,731 100,000 Adjusted request for BRJDC 26,370 26,370 1.0 FTE Fire/Rescue Trainer 45,189 45,189 Human Development Commission on Children & Families 18,000 18,000 Parks and Recreation Library 30,000 30,000 Community Development 1.0 FTE Senior Planner 65,068 56,658 8,410 ACE (Tourism Fund) 450,000 450,000 ACE (General Fund) 550,000 550,000 Additional Initiatives Funded 1,686,583 550,553 1,136,030 Remaining Board Reserve Fund (recurring revenues) 85,369 Remaining One-Time Revenues for non-recurring needs 163,970 School Division Available School Board Reserve 911,002 Unfunded School Board Initiatives 911,002 Mr. Tucker said staff has put in money for the ACE Program, and that was not discussed on Monday. The Fund Balance in the Tourism Fund was somewhat stronger this year, so $450,000 was used from that fund. Yesterday staff got a number from the Library relative to their expected shortfall in revenues, and he added $30,000 for that expense. Mr. Tucker noted that he had added in additional revenues from fee increases which were discussed on Monday. However, the decal fee is a local revenue so it must be shared with the schools. They would get 60 percent of that increased fee if the Board chooses to impose an increased fee. The Board had also asked how much of an increase would be needed in the E-911 surcharge to just cover the amount being subsidized now. It would cause an increase from $1.39 to $1.65 per telephone line. He said he checked and most localities are already charging $2.00 per line. Mr. Tucker said if the Board decides to funds all of the items discussed on Monday, there would still be a reserve available of $85,369 in recurring funds, and $163,970 in non-recurring funds. Mr. Dorrier asked the possibility of delaying some capital expenses, and delaying hiring of new employees for a few months. Mr. Tucker said that is a possibility. Ms. Thomas suggested discussing revenues first. Mr. Tucker said there is a new law which contains a sunset clause of one year, but it would give the County a $5.00 fee for every conviction and A@ would generate a goodly sum, but the money must be used for security in the courts. What the County would do is supplant some of what it is presently doing with those funds. He has not been able to discuss this with the Sheriff. One thing he would not do is approve of adding any personnel because of the sunset March 20, 2002 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting) (Page 6) clause. Mr. Dorrier said he was not in favor of increasing the decal fee. He would support the $5.00 surcharge on convictions. Mr. Martin asked if anyone had a vague idea of how much revenue it might generate. Mr. Hildebeidel said it is close to $11,000. Ms. Thomas said she thinks the increase in the decal fee is relevant because the County is having to pick up more road-related costs. Although Mr. Perkins always votes against it, the County has been putting one-half million dollars into road projects each year. There has been talk about the Hillsdale Drive project and other roads. People with cars cause these expenses, so she has no bad feeling about raising the decal fee. Mr. Rooker said between the decal fee and the E-911 surcharge, he is more inclined to raise the decal fee. Raising the decal fee would also provide the schools with additional funds for the opening of Baker-Butler elementary. Mr. Davis said he believes a lot of counties are considering an increase in decal fees. Mr. Tucker said the City is considering an increase. Mr. Martin said the Board is discussing these two fees in the mode of making a final decision when Schools needs must be added into the total picture. Once the Board looks at the bigger picture and discusses the suggestion for a 3.3 salary adjustment, the Board can then discuss these fees in the proper context. If the Board decides now, he would accept Mr. Dorriers point of view that $179,000 in a $190.0 = million budget is too small of an amount to consider covering it with an increase in fees. Ms. Thomas said the Board still needs to decide on the items Mr. Tucker included in the chart from Mondays meeting. She asked if there are any of those items the Board members do not want to leave on = the list, recognizing that a final decision cannot be made until revenues are finalized. Mr. Tucker said the Board still has to deal with the issue of moving fire dispatch from the City to the Emergency Communications Center (ECC). That could be fully funded from the E-911 surcharge. If Board members are hesitant about increasing the E-911 surcharge now, it will have to be done at some point. Whether fire dispatch is left at the City or moved, the County still has to pay that cost. Ms. Thomas asked the cost of that service. Mr. Foley said it is close to $220,000. It would take a $0.37 increase to cover the cost. Mr. Dorrier mentioned the cost shown on the chart for a 3.3 percent increase in compensation of $295,000. Mr. Tucker said that would be General Governments cost if the Board goes along with the = School Boards proposal to increase compensation by 3.3 percent. The School Board has a reserve of = $911,000 and they will probably tell the Board that in addition to the $125,000 he had recommended be given to them for start-up costs at Baker-Butler, they need another $390,000 to balance their budget. Mr. Rooker said there was an article in the newspaper that said market for salaries is 3.8 percent, not 3.3 percent. Mr. Tucker said that is what the presentation will be later today when the School Board is here. The two Boards have to decide if they will leave compensation at two percent as was agreed to last fall, or increase that to some other figure. Mr. Rooker asked about the increase in health care costs. Mr. Tucker said the idea from the two boards was to cover the increased health care cost so that will not be an added burden. With only a two percent increase, there would be no increase in take-home pay. Mr. Rooker said the School Boards budget proposes no increase in health care coverage costs to = the employees. He assumes that means those employees with dependent coverage. He asked if that is correct. Mr. Tucker said they will provide the same increased cost that everyone had whether it is an employee only, or whether there is a family increase. There will be no increase. Mr. Rooker said they are then picking up the family increase. Mr. Tucker said that is correct. This is the first time that has been covered. Mr. Rooker said if that is done, the County will be paying a component of dependent coverage. He asked if that is proposed for all employees. Mr. Tucker said yes. That cost is already in both budgets. A@ Mr. Dorrier said the budget is so close to being balanced, he sees no need to raise the vehicle decal fee. Hiring could be deferred for three months to make up the difference. Mr. Tucker said the Board needs to tell staff what it wants to do. Mr. Martin said he is in favor of hiring the full-time Rescue Trainer. Mr. Rooker said he thought the Board had asked to put on the list matching grant money for fire/rescue. Mr. Martin said he thinks that is already there. The match does not always have to be in cash. Mr. Foley said staff intends to respond to any grant proposals that come along. There can be in-kind matches depending on the grant. Mr. Dorrier said the one addition that he favors is hiring of a full-time budget analyst. He thinks that employee could save the County money in the long-run. Mr. Rooker said he thought the Board had asked for a better description of the job. What information does a full-time budget analyst provide that the Board does not have today, and why is it being recommended? The same thing pertains to the extra employee in Community Development. Since that department had many thousands of dollars in unfunded requests, is this really the area where the money March 20, 2002 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting) (Page 7) should be added? Will that planner help this department move forward with some work that would not move forward otherwise? Mr. Hildebeidel handed to the Board members a description of a Budget Analyst II. He said the Office of Management and Budget is a new department which provides the Board and staff support services. Also, due to the new GAS-B34 accounting requirements, staff has to look at non-General Fund revenue accounts that previously have not been appropriated within the budget. He said the County will most likely be implementing a Vehicle Maintenance and Replacement Fund. No financial forecast has been done for the County in the last three years because there has not been the time or the resources to do so. Mr. Rooker asked if there are grant sources which cannot be taken advantage of now. Ms. White said that is a major area where the County could be more successful. She said Social Services has a new accountant on staff who is studying revenue maximization. A $1.0 million program is being funded with refunds they have gotten because they went through the process of finding out how to pull down Federal funds. She said there are untapped resources, and the County has not been effective in looking for different funding resources. There is no one on County staff who manages grants. It is being done on a piece-meal basis. Mr. Perkins said he thinks the Board has to depend on staff in this situation to say what is needed. Mr. Hildebeidel said staff did locate a $6000 grant for the GIS program just recently. Also, the cost for this position was lowered a little by changing the proposal. Ms. Thomas asked Mr. Cilimberg to explain the request for the second Senior Planner. Mr. Cilimberg handed to the Board members a written proposal justifying the need for the two planners. He said it relates purely to implementation of the Neighborhood Model and was the Departments highest = priority request. He noted that the implementation strategy of the Model outlines numerous initiatives, all of which require planning staff involvement. The primary focus is on Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance amendments, amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and other county standards and policies related to urban development and the provision of public infrastructure and services. He said this is in addition to applications which must be reviewed. He also provided a copy of task areas done by the department, and which employee is handling each area. It also shows those areas which are not assigned to anyone at this time because there is no staff person available. Mr. Rooker asked how this person would be assigned. Mr. Cilimberg said this person would work on the aspects of the Neighborhood Model which are outside of the master planning process. He said the Community Facilities Plan needs to be updated. Also, this person would provide extra time for review of the kind of applications being filed which get more and more complicated. He noted that on the last page of the handout is a list of major projects which staff is expecting will be filed over the next 18 months to two years. Mr. Rooker said it looks like something that is worth funding. Mr. Dorrier said this will get a new program off on the right foot. Ms. Thomas agreed. She said the Board promised the community that this A@ would be done. Mr. Martin noted that Chief Miller is present at the Boards request to answer questions. Mr. Tucker = said the Chief was asked to be present to speak about the Officer to Population Ratio. A@ Chief Miller handed to the Board a chart demonstrating the Officer to Population Ratio between 1992 and 2002. He said that in 1992 it was recommended that a standard be set of 1.5 police officers per thousand of population. At the time that recommendation was made, the national average for suburban counties was 2.1 per thousand. In 2001, the national average was 2.4. Albemarle is still holding to 1.5 per thousand, but as the years have gone by, the County has dropped behind. In the year 2002 based on a population of 86,000, there are 1.22 officers per thousand putting the County behind its average of about 23 officers. Mr. Martin asked if the proposed budget will keep the average at 1.22. Mr. Tucker said that is correct. Mr. Perkins asked if other localities count other law enforcement people in the community such as the Sheriff and State Police. Chief Miller said no. They count only those in the community who actually A@ enforce the law, and not just other law enforcement personnel. There are no State law enforcement people in the community except on I-64 and the County is supplementing them most of the time. Mr. Perkins said it seems that the more the County does the less the State does. Chief Miller said that is their policy. As the County grows, they will remove State people. Mr. Perkins said the County has the Sheriff. Chief Miller said they are not actively out in the community doing criminal investigations. When comparing the Albemarle County Police Department to the Citys, their population is 40,000 and they have 113 officers. = What hurts his department is the geographical area they serve. Mr. Martin asked if other suburban counties have sheriffs departments. Chief Miller said most of = them are sheriffs departments. = Mr. Rooker asked if the Sheriffs Department were combined with the Police, what would the = number of employees be. Mr. Tucker said there are 21 deputies, so there would be a total of 126 employees. March 20, 2002 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting) (Page 8) Mr. Rooker said the goal of 1.5 is with respect to the Police Department. Mr. Martin said he thinks the 1.5 is still a legitimate number because he thinks the Board which set that number was taking into account the Sheriffs personnel. He has no problem with putting in the salary for one more officer to be = discussed when the Board gets to the point of looking at the big picture. A@ Mr. Rooker said when the population is growing by 2000 people per year, then three new employees are needed in the Police Department, or the County just naturally falls behind numerically. He thinks another officer should be added to the budget for discussion. Mr. Martin said he needs to make some phone calls before the Board starts the meeting at four oclock with the School Board. He asked if the Board was going to discuss anything else significant at this = time. Mr. Foley said Mr. John Oprandy, Acting Assistant Chief, was asked to be present to discuss the training position for fire/rescue. Mr. Martin said he thinks that question has been settled. Mr. Dorrier said he had a question about the Police. Chief Miller said the original request was for three officers, the recommendation is for one officer. Mr. Dorrier asked the cost of an additional officer. Mr. Hildebeidel said it would cost $42,750 in recurring funds and $30,000 in non-recurring funds for a vehicle and equipment. (Note: Mr. Martin left the meeting at 3:44 p.m.) Mr. Perkins asked what percentage of time the Animal Control Officers actually deal with dogs. He asked how much could be gained by increasing the dog license fee. Ms. White said there is only $11,000 received from the current fee. Mr. Tucker said Mr. John OPrandy is also present if the Board wants to discuss the fire dispatch = change. Mr. OPrandy said he would summarize what the Fire Contract calls for and the available options. = First, the agreement states that the City will provide free dispatch until June 30, 2002. After that date the County can choose to have dispatch provided by the City Fire Department, the ECC and City Fire, or the ECC. He said if the County continues with the City dispatch there are two costs involved. The contract only says the County and City will negotiate a reasonable fee. There is no other guidance in the contract. Staff has been waiting for estimates from the City since they may need to add personnel. Second, if the City dispatches their resources to County calls, there is a formula in the contract that is based on a mid-range cost of firefighters plus benefits. That is about $34,000 a year, but staff still does not have a cost from the City on the first option. The City said that 60 percent of their operation is related to supplying service to the County. They suggested taking 60 percent of their total costs, and that comes out to $259,000. Mr. Rooker asked if that is a total of $292,000. Mr. OPrandy said no. Staff just used an entirely =A@ different method to come up with the estimate of $259,000. He said if the County decided to go to the ECC, the contract still calls for the County to pay the City for the calls that they dispatch. He said all the calls will come into the ECC and any call requiring City resources will have to be transferred to the City. Right now, any call coming into the ECC is automatically turned over. He said the estimate for doing that is $185,000 for five dispatchers and associated operating costs, plus the $34,000, making a total of $219,000. Mr. OPrandy said a third option is that the ECC would dispatch all calls for the region which is what = was originally intended when the regional ECC was set up. All calls would be dispatched based on established protocol, although operating procedures for that would need to be established. The County would expect that its cost would still be 60 percent. That could vary. If the City could be convinced to do this regionally, and to separate from City fire and go to the ECC, the County could save $100,000 over the next least expensive option. If the City continued to do the dispatching, the $259,000 could change because they have suggested that there are other costs they would like to include. Mr. Rooker said he believes that if the City lost the Countys dispatch it might force them to Option 3 = because of the loss of revenue. Mr. Foley said the ECC people are hired to dispatch, they go through extensive training. The City uses their firefighters before they actually become firefighters, so the County has some issues with that. Mr. Tucker said the City is providing that service now at no cost to the County, so the County will have an increased cost no matter which option is chosen. Ms. Thomas said if the E-911 surcharge were raised to fit this cost, that would remove that surcharge from the revenue side. Raising the vehicle decal fee the way it has been proposed does not get enough to come out in the black for everything else which has been discussed today. Mr. Tucker said staff can revise the chart and take out the decal fee to show a new bottom line figure. Mr. Dorrier said if all the new employees were hired in January instead of July that would save a considerable amount of money. Ms. Thomas said Ms. White has indicated that there are two positions where the hiring could be postponed until January. (Note: At 4:00 p.m., the Board recessed, and reconvened at 4:08 p.m.) _______________ Agenda Item No. 3. Joint Meeting with the Albemarle County School Board. March 20, 2002 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting) (Page 9) Present at this time were School Board members: Mr. Kenneth C. Boyd, Mr. Gary W. Grant, Mr. Stephen H. Koleszar, Ms. Diantha H. McKeel, Ms. Pamela R. Moynihan, Mr. Gordon J. Walker and Mr. Charles M. Ward. School staff and officers present were: Superintendent, Dr. Kevin C. Castner, Assistant Superintendent for Support Services, Dr. Frank E. Morgan, Assistant Superintendent, Dr. Jean S. Murray, Director of Human Resources, Kimberly Suyes, Human Resources Manager/Benefits and Compensation, Bob Brandenburger, Human Resources Compensation and Benefits Director, Lorna Gerome, and, Clerk of the School Board, Jennifer Johnston. Ms. Thomas called the Supervisors meeting back to order at 4:09 p.m. and Mr. Koleszar, School = Board Chairman, called the School Board meeting to order. __________ Work Session: School Budget. Mr. Koleszar said Dr. Castner had an announcement about the revenue projections of the State. Dr. Castner said earlier this week it was learned that the School System would lose approximately $90,000 from the State, and probably another $200,000 in state construction funds. The State also cut a lot of grants, they cut everyone of the Best Practice Centers which funded Staff Development Support. He will have a memo out to all Board members by tomorrow evening. Mr. Koleszar said that every year the School Board resets its priorities and sets high goals and high expectations for the School System. There is a Strategic Plan which is what the staff uses to reach those high goals. Each year, a progress report is published which measures whether the School System is accomplishing its goals and priorities. Mr. Koleszar and Ms. McKeel then showed some slides giving statistics for the School System (copy on file). Mr. Koleszar said when work began on the FY 2002-03 School Budget, it started right after September 11th when there was fear of a recession. They knew the State was experiencing deep budget problems. They had also used some one-time moneys to balance their 2001-02 budget, so they knew there would be other financial strains. The School Board told the Superintendent to construct an austere budget. Mr. Koleszar said that now in March of 2002, conditions are much more favorable than they were in November. There has been a favorable change in the Composite Index and local revenue has not been as impacted by the recession as feared. But, they kept to the concept of an austere budget because they know there are other County needs. However, there must be market compensation to reward a high performing staff. He then offered to take questions. Mr. Dorrier asked what market compensation translates into in dollars. Mr. Koleszar said Ms. Suyes will go over that in her presentation. Mr. Rooker said he would like to ask about enrollment growth and start-up costs for Baker-Butler. He wonders if these two items have overlapping expenses since he finds salaries for special education teachers listed in both categories. Dr. Morgan said funding for Baker-Butler School was set up as a separate entity for its first year of operations because it was felt that would be an issue in the budget. Mr. Rooker said there are 4.3 FTEs added to special education staff in this budget. Dr. Morgan = said that is partly due to Baker-Butler. He said they feel this is a conservative number because the individual education plans for students coming into the system reflect more significant needs than budgeted for. Mr. Rooker asked what type of increase usually shows from year to year for special needs students. Dr. Morgan said it is not the number, but the degree of service required by these students. He said that last year they had less students than projected, but because of their service needs, the 5.5 FTE teachers they budgeted for were all used. Mr. Rooker asked how many special needs students are in the system. Dr. Morgan said it is about 16 percent. Dr. Castner said the costs for this category have increased from about $300,000 to over $1.0 million in four years. That is a dramatic cost. It is an area where the School System has no choice in offering services. Mr. Rooker asked about the increase in operational expenses for the schools. Dr. Morgan said these expenses are for things the School System has to pay, such as the air-conditioning for Burley Middle School, increased refuse costs due to the closing of the Ivy Landfill, increased insurance costs from Fiscal Services, criminal background checks for Human Resources, a number of special education costs, maintenance agreements for technology, bus replacements, etc. Mr. Rooker asked if these increases are enrollment-growth oriented. Dr. Morgan said no. A@ Insurance costs are driven by the fact that insurance companies are building up their cash reserves again to deal with September 11. It is just the cost of doing business. Mr. Rooker said he has seen reports in the newspaper saying the Legislature has provided for a 2.5 percent increase in teacher pay. He understands they are in fact providing almost nothing for local teacher pay. Mr. Koleszar said the 2.5 percent is for the second year of the biennium, not this year. Mr. Rooker March 20, 2002 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting) (Page 10) said he understands that applies to the SOQ, so localities like Albemarle will get little or nothing next year. Mr. Koleszar said Albemarle receives less, but it does receive the money based on the SOQ mandates filtered by the composite index. This means that Albemarle County gets about 38 cents on the dollar. Mr. Rooker said he understands that medical insurances costs will rise this year by approximately $1.3 million, about 25 percent. The School Boards proposal is to pick up all of that increase which = includes both employee and dependent coverage, and this will be the first time there has been any payment of dependent coverage. Mr. Koleszar said that is correct. He said Ms. Suyes will discuss this further in her presentation. Mr. Grant said he wanted to understand what Dr. Castner said earlier about the updated state revenue projections. He said Dr. Castner had said there would be $90,000 less in operating and $200,000 less in construction funds. He asked if this is in addition to the losses already reported. Dr. Castner said yes. Dr. Morgan said the $90,000 is less than what was assumed when the budget was sent to the A@ Supervisors. The $200,000 in construction funds normally goes into the CIP, so it will not affect the regular school fund budget. Mr. Grant asked the total amount of new money expected from the state for operating, and the total new construction money. Dr. Morgan said he would provide that information at the next School Board meeting. Mr. Grant said he thinks that number is important because he did not perceive the Schools not getting an increase. They actually are getting an increase in funds, but it is a lesser increase than that anticipated. Dr. Morgan said that is correct. Mr. Koleszar said the budget document shows state revenues increasing by about $290,000. Now it will be about $200,000. Mr. Martin said he had heard that this was actually favorable, because it was less than what staff had thought would be cut. Mr. Boyd asked if the School Board members would receive a new Page A-4 at its meeting tomorrow. Dr. Castner said no, not until the budget process is over. A@ __________ Work Session: Compensation. Ms. Suyes made a slide presentation of a report entitled Albemarle County Joint Board Update, AA Compensation and Benefits for 2002-2003 (Copy on file in the Clerks Office). She noted that at the @@= joint meeting of the Boards in November, staff recommended a 4.3 percent salary increase based on WorldatWork data. After September 11, staff recommended a 3.3 percent salary increase based on an abbreviated survey by WorldatWork in light of the unusual events of September 11. Then staff proposed a 3.0 percent salary scale adjustment for FY 2002-03, and then planned on a 16 percent increase in the medical insurance plan based on claims data to that date. Ms. Suyes said the Board told staff to build the FY 2002-03 budget on a two percent salary increase for teachers and classified staff, with there being no increase in medical insurance premiums for employees. Staff was also told to bring back a report after the market was resurveyed. They have looked at a lot of data since that meeting in November. The Chamber of Commerce did a 2002 Local Business Forecast which showed that the local economy is changing. Forty-one percent felt the employment level would rise; 56.6 percent felt the employment level would hold steady; 57.8 percent felt that profits will increase; and, 73.8 percent expect a rise in operating costs. Ms. Suyes said the Charlottesville area still has one of the lowest unemployment levels in Virginia. Last July, the unemployment rate in Albemarle County was 1.4 percent, and in January it was at 2.4 percent. In Charlottesville the rate went from 2.3 percent in July to 2.8 percent in January. The cost-of- living in Charlottesville is the second highest of the eight largest urban areas in Virginia. Charlottesville is second only to Northern Virginia, but Albemarles pay scales differ greatly. She said they surveyed 30 = localities/organizations. Twenty responded to the salary survey, and 21 responded to the medical insurance survey. The results of this survey show that the teachers in this market can expect a 3.8 percent salary increase. Classified employees can expect a 3.5 percent salary increase. Ms. Suyes said that the contribution rate for medical insurance in Albemarle County currently is 95.5 percent to employee only. There is no additional contribution to employee plus family. The survey shows that on the average this market contributes 91.5 percent to employee only, and also contributes 26.6 percent to employee plus family. Mr. Rooker asked if all employees pay the 4.5 percent difference. Mr. Tucker said yes. A@ Mr. Boyd asked the actual dollar amount an employee pays for family coverage. Mr. Brandenburger said the County pays $255.00 per month, while the employee pays $202.00 per month. Ms. Suyes said the employee also pays out-of-pocket costs of $33.00 per prescription. For a family of four, that is a goodly amount. Mr. Boyd asked if the cost for a single employee is more than that for a family. He said the figures quoted are contradictory to those seen in private industry. It is normally two to three times as costly to carry family coverage. Ms. Suyes said some of the questions raised will require more specific data. She has requested information from Southern Health, the Countys insurance carrier. Staff does not have a = breakdown to answer the questions raised. Mr. Boyd said he does not know how staff can fit the unanswered questions into the survey. He has trouble with the chart because the other counties have different health plans. He would prefer to get this information in dollar figures instead of percentages. March 20, 2002 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting) (Page 11) Mr. Rooker said there should be data giving a well-rounded presentation of how Albemarle County compares to other localities. Mr. Tucker said staff will try to get that information but he does not think staff will ever be able to compare the different medical insurance plans because Albemarle is self-insured, some are not, and it depends on the number of claims filed. Mr. Boyd said when he became eligible for the Countys plan, he switched from the UVA plan because the Countys plan is much less money with more == benefits. Ms. Suyes said there may be further analysis that can be done, but the Boards need to look at the total benefits package. She argues that the package is very limited compared to some of the Countys = competitors. Vision and short-term disability are not offered in the Countys plan, and there are other things = she could mention. Mr. Boyd asked if it is reasonable to say that if a person is paid $50,000 per year, the County will contribute 30 percent above that for benefits. Mr. Koleszar said whenever there is this type of data, there are different ways to look at it. Mr. Boyd said he is not willing to admit, as he read in the newspaper, that Albemarle has less competitive benefits than the market surveyed. He said that seems to be the conclusion in the conversation today. Mr. Martin asked the Countys standing in terms of benefits for FY 2001-02. Ms. Gerome said it = was at 102.5 percent of market, with a goal of 105 percent. Mr. Martin asked what information was used to arrive at that number. Ms. Gerome said it was a total review of what the employer is contributing to benefits: VRS, health insurance premium, life insurance premium. Mr. Martin said everyone in the group (Compensation Committee) agreed the numbers were from the appropriate sources. That group included a number of people who are very good at number A crunching in a very conservative manner. He thinks when the talk gets to that of benefits, the County @ should compare itself to what it compared itself to six or seven months ago, and then try to reach its objective. The same thing should be done with compensation using the same data, no quickie surveys of A@ the market to get the data, but use the exact same data so the County is moving toward the goal which has been agreed to by all. Mr. Boyd said the Benefits Committee never completed its survey. It was provided information based on feature functionality, not on the numbers shown today. What has been presented today is a change in the way of looking at things. Ms. Thomas agreed. Mr. Martin said he thinks the Boards should just forget that page and go back to what WorldatWork said and then report it. Ms. Suyes said she had a few more slides to present. As to teacher salaries, last November the County was at 100 percent of market. With the two percent proposed for this budget, the County would only be at 98.2 percent of market. It would take 3.8 percent to reach market based on the data staff has today. Mr. Boyd asked how staff arrived at the 3.8 percent figure. Ms. Suyes said it was based on the median of the average. Mr. Boyd asked if that figure is based on percentages and not on actual salary scales. Mr. Ward said it is based on salary scales last year. Once there is a base, then a projection can be made using percentages. In this case, the Committee had the salaries. Ms. Suyes said that at the present time, classified salaries are at 97.5 percent of market. Using the two percent figure proposed for this budget, classified salaries would drop to 96.0 percent of market. To get to market would take a six percent increase. Ms. Suyes said that last November, she told the Boards that it was expected there would be a 16 percent increase in medical costs. Now that more claims data is known, the projection is for a 17.7 percent increase to the total medical costs. The recommendation to not pass any of this increase to the employees would make it a 27 percent increase to the Boards contribution. = Ms. Suyes said that in order to achieve the Boards strategy of market, a 3.8 percent salary = increase for teachers would be needed, a six percent merit pool for classified employed would be needed, and the Board would need to contribute $3840 per employee to cover the full increase in medical costs. Staff is recommending that the Boards consider changing the 3.3 percent increase to a 4.3 percent increase for both teachers and classified employees, that the Boards contribute $3840 to cover the full increase in medical insurance, and that a long-term plan to reach market for classified employees be developed. Mr. Martin said he thinks the Boards, in November, agreed to use whatever figure came from the second WorldatWork survey, and that is a 3.3 percent increase. Mr. Perkins said there has not been any discussion about available resources. That is the bottom line. Mr. Martin asked what the School Board wants from the Supervisors today in terms of compensation and benefits. Mr. Koleszar said he would like to see benefits increased and salaries be at market. Mr. Dorrier asks what that translates to in terms of dollars. Mr. Martin asked if there is an official stand by the School Board. Mr. Koleszar said the School Board has not taken an official stand at this time. Mr. Walker said he thought the School Board voted to bring teacher salaries to market when it voted on the budget to be presented to the Supervisors. Mr. Koleszar said that is correct. Ms. McKeel said she understands that everybody said they would honor the process that was established to keep employee salaries at market. Mr. Martin said in order for the Board of Supervisors to March 20, 2002 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting) (Page 12) make its decision, he thinks they need to know the financial expectations in terms of the requests from the School Board. He has other questions about the budget itself. So far the discussion has focused more on philosophy. Mr. Dorrier said the Committee that he and Mr. Martin served on agreed to the 3.8 percent, all wanted to do it, and do it quickly, but did not set a time line, and did not say they wanted to get salaries to market by raising taxes. Mr. Koleszar said the School Board would like for the Supervisors to give it the money to make the increase, but if the Supervisors do not, they will have to cut their budget in order to find the money. Ms. McKeel said that has been the consensus of the School Board to this point. Mr. Martin asked if the School Board wanted a 3.3 percent or 3.8 percent increase. Mr. Koleszar said the School Board wanted to get to market with the Supervisors because they want to maintain commonality if possible. Mr. Martin asked again what percentage the School Board wanted. Mr. Koleszar said he is reaching for 3.8 percent. Mr. Martin said in order to maintain commonality the Supervisors need to know what figure the School Board wants to use. Mr. Koleszar said he thought the purpose of this meeting was to arrive at that number. Mr. Martin said that speaking as an individual (and the Supervisors need another meeting before they can make any final decisions), he would strive for 3.3 percent. Mr. Boyd said he sees that everyone is somehow separating benefits from salaries. He is concerned there is a medical program that is actually hurtful to the younger, single teachers because the family-oriented people are being supplemented by the way this is structured, needing $1.3 million to cover all of those increases. He is not sure he agrees with putting this large of a chunk of compensation into medical benefits. Mr. Martin said a huge percentage of those people will have a family. He made his statement because he knows the Supervisors have to move on with the decision. Mr. Martin said he had a couple of questions about the budget itself. He said personnel is the largest item in the budget. He asked if the personnel budget was based on the number of teachers that would be on staff if there was 100 percent employment. Mr. Koleszar said there is a lapse factor in their budget of $250,000. Historically they have had a higher lapse factor, but this is a conservative budget. Mr. Dorrier said he does not think the Boards would be in this fix if the State had done what it was supposed to A@ do this year. Since they didnt, there is a $400,000 shortfall. = Ms. Thomas said the only question before the Boards today is that of medical insurance premiums. How much of that will the Boards pick up? She would feel comfortable in not having the increased cost passed to the employees given the fact that claims experience has been very good. Mr. Boyd asked if the Boards had based picking up medical costs on a two percent salary increase. He asked if that figure is moved to 3.3 percent if that changes the philosophy. Are the medical and dental figures definite cost figures? Mr. Brandenburger said the medical and dental programs are out to bid. In late May, staff will have a recommendation. Mr. Boyd said that for the last two years the estimated cost during budget work sessions was off from what turned out to be the final cost. He wonders if that will happen again this year. Ms. Suyes said it is a proposed percentage based on a limited amount of claims data, so it is a best guess. Mr. Ward said the WorldatWork figures indicate what the salary increase should be. He wonders if it is 3.3 percent or 4.3 percent or something in between. If you listen to what the Feds have done, they are becoming neutral, so they think things are becoming a little better. Mr. Martin said it is a simple thing that makes sense to him. If he goes with the 3.3 percent, he can stand on the Committees recommendation. If he moves from that figure, he feels vulnerable and is not = standing on firm ground. Mr. Koleszar said Mr. Martin is saying that the increase should be 3.3 percent for teachers and 5.8 percent for classified. Mr. Martin said that is correct, although he is not saying that he would vote for either one. Next year if the same source says the Boards mis-guessed up or down, whatever is needed will have to be done. Ms. Thomas said 3.3 percent does not pay any attention to the market figure which was worked out laboriously by the Committee. Mr. Koleszar said the Committee did that because they felt there would never be a perfectly accurate market survey. It decided to get a relatively good national number and then use that number and make a correction the following year. He said the Committee agreed that the figure should go to 5.8 percent for classified and 3.3 percent for teachers. Mr. Martin said that after everyone adopts their budget, then the County can determine its market. Mr. Boyd said the Committee then thinks it is better to use WorldatWork information compiled a year in advance based on what people think they will do a year from now. Mr. Koleszar said that is what the Committee decided. Mr. Martin said the Committee members disagreed with that recommendation for different reasons, but finally came to that conclusion. Mr. Boyd said he does not think it is a fair analysis to say there would not be as valid data by a current survey as would be obtained from WorldatWork information a year in advance. Mr. Koleszar said there is a cost involved in getting this information. Mr. Martin said a market survey will be done after budgets are adopted. Mr. Boyd said he checked the website for Blue Ridge UniServe, the local teachers district, and = found all the salary scales for the district. This took him a few seconds, and it was free. This is what staff said would be done last year and it was not. Ms. Suyes asked if these are salary scales. Mr. Boyd said March 20, 2002 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting) (Page 13) yes. Last year it says Albemarle increased between 4.7 percent and 7.8 percent for teacher salaries. A@ This does not look like the County is outside of market. Mr. Martin said he thinks both Boards will have to separate and take a vote. The votes may not be unanimous, but Mr. Boyd can vote against the recommendation if he so desires. Mr. Koleszar said the reason that Committee worked so hard, and the reason both Boards adopted the strategy was because it decided the Countys market was not just those seven districts, or just Northern = Virginia, or just southwest Virginia. It carefully took localities from all the markets and decided on the market. This year, a survey was taken which showed that teacher salaries are on market, and classified salaries are 2.5 percent below market. There is no hard data for what the market will be next year because no one knows what the increases will be. Mr. Martin asked if anything is being achieved. Ms. McKeel suggested taking one issue at a time and making some decision. She asked if the Boards could support some sort of a range at this point. Ms. Moynihan asked if while doing the survey, the different pay scales of the districts were studied or just the percentage of salary increase. Mr. Brandenburger said they looked at the percentage for salary increases for next year. Ms. Moynihan said staff should look at the actual pay scales in those districts, and then bump up those salaries to see where they have to go to get to market. Then staff needs to compare A@ that to what Albemarles pay scale might be. Mr. Koleszar said that survey was done, but there is no hard = data on what their scales might be. It is not data that is relevant at this time. Ms. Suyes said she is taken back by the information given by Mr. Boyd. He has found the opportunity to request lots of information from her team, but has not given them an opportunity to look at some of the information he is bringing to the meeting. She asks that in the future, requests for information and requests for answers to specific questions, be presented in advance of a meeting. She said her staff could pull information from different sources all across the country and across Virginia, and have an argument that would last for hours. That is why the Committee decided on 30 organizations. There was a lot of painstaking preparation. Ms. Moynihan interrupted and suggested that staff look at the salary scales and make another column showing the zero scale to the 30" scale, and just do the current numbers so all can see where A@A the Countys salary scale is right now compared to the other counties, and what their actual percentage = raise will be. She thinks that would give a better view of where Albemarle is compared to those counties, and give a better handle on what those raises are going to be. Ms. Suyes said that is a good point. What A@ Ms. Moynihan is looking at is the total salary piece, and there is a lot of information in that piece, including how much it costs to live in the area. She said that is something the Boards would have to direct her to do. If they choose to do so, she would suggest there be a column added to show the cost-of-living in each area. Mr. Martin said that at this time he would move that the Supervisors go forward in the budget process with the idea of using a 3.3 percent increase for teachers and classified employees, along with the insurance proposal recommended earlier today just to see if this can be moved along. Ms. Thomas said it was also recommended that staff also develop a long-term plan to see how to get the salaries of classified employees to market. Mr. Martin said he has no problem with adding that suggestion to his motion. Ms. Thomas said if this motion passes, then the question about the School Board must be settled. If the School Board is willing to use the 3.3 percent to keep commonality, then there is no need to meet again. Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion and asked if the numbers will change based on Federal or State funding. Dr. Castner said no. He does not see there being an increase in the numbers. A@ At this time, roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Dorrier. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman. __________ It was the consensus of the School Board to discuss the compensation issue at its next Board meeting on Monday. __________ From the Board and School Board: Matters not Listed on the Agenda. There were no other matters to be discussed at this time. _______________ Agenda Item No. 4. Adjourn. With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 5:50 p.m. ________________________________________ March 20, 2002 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting) (Page 14) Chairman Approved by the Board of County Supervisors Date: 08/14/2002 Initials: EWC