Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-03-13 Budget Work SessionMarch 13, 2000 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 1) An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on March 13, 2000, at 1:00 p.m., Room 235, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. This meeting was adjourned from March 8, 2000. PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman (arrived at 1:20 p.m.), Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr. (arrived at 1:09 p.m.), Mr. Charles S. Martin, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Ms. Sally H. Thomas. ABSENT: Ms. Charlotte Y. Humphris. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Assistant County Executive, Roxanne W. White, Assistant County Executive, Thomas Foley, Budget Manager, Anne Gulati, County Attorney, Larry W. Davis, and Clerk, Ella W. Carey. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 1:04 p.m., by the Chairman, Mr. Martin. _______________ Agenda Item No. 2. FY 2000/2001 OPERATING BUDGET WORK SESSION: Budget Overview of Major Issues General Fund Revenues and Expenditures "" Mr. Tucker noted that some of the things he would talk about in the overview had been discussed previously, and he, Ms. White and Mr. Foley would discuss the functional areas of the budget. The total County revenues are $158,497,358 which is a $12.0 million increase over the current FY 2000 budget, or an 8.2 percent increase. The expenditures indicate that a majority of the funding, amounting to 67 percent, is allocated to the school system, making a total of $105.7 million which is about a $7.1 million increase or a seven percent increase over the current FY 2000 budget. He said Revenue Sharing increased a total of $6.1 million and is four percent of the total budget. He next called attention to the General Government’s total expenditures increase in the budget of about $4.0 million. He noted that when operating and self-sustaining funds are added to the school system’s budget it puts the amount at $6.7 million. He said non-departmental expenditures are at $1.0 million which is an increase of $12.0 million. He then discussed General Fund revenues which increased about $9.5 million and totals $117,497,799, and is made up primarily of property taxes at 61 percent which equates to $72.0 million. He pointed out that other local taxes are in the amount of $29.3 million, which is 25 percent of the budget. Other local revenues account for $4.8 million or four percent of the budget; State Revenues equate to $7.2 million or six percent of the budget; and Federal revenues are at $3.2 million or three percent of the budget. He noted that of the major revenue sources the largest is the real estate revenue which increased $3.1 million or a seven and one-half percent increase, and it reflects an estimated reassessment increase for at least one-half year of seven percent. He stated that $218.0 million is for new construction. Personal property increased $2.5 million or 12 percent. He noted that the amount of sales tax revenues is $1.3 million, which is a 15 percent increase and is due to Virginia’s strong economy. He added that the BPOL tax increased $800,000 or 16.2 percent. He explained that $50,000 of the BPOL increase is from the amusement license fee which will require a change in the County Code. The State Code changed, but the section in the County Code has not been amended. However, this will be done in the near future. Ms. Thomas asked for an example of the amusement license fee. Mr. Tucker responded that these are minor fees and there are not as many of them as would be expected. Mr, Davis stated that Adelphia Cable, which has relocated to the County, would be one of the services requiring an amusement license fee. Mr. Tucker continued with his presentation by indicating that hotel/motel revenues increased by $300,000 or 22.7 percent. He stated that one of the things in terms of additional revenue which will be considered again is the cable franchise tax with Adelphia Cable. He said advantages and disadvantages have been examined a number of times over the years, and it was basically decided not to move forward with this issue. He emphasized, though, that this would bring about $250,000 additional revenue. The meals tax increased approximately $200,000 or 7.3 percent and overall local revenues are at an 8.9 percent increase. Categorical state revenues increased by $400,000 or 9.3 percent and reflects a 27 percent increase in 599 funds. The revenues were provided with 599 funds based on the Governor’s budget. The General Assembly has amended this slightly so the increase will only be about 22 or 23 percent which will mean a reduction of the amount built into the budget of approximately $73,000. He added that based on the budget the General Assembly adopted last week, the staff is still trying to determine the actual increase in revenues, but the figure is not yet ready. Another savings which will mean an additional revenue is in the VRS reduction. The State considered having an actuarial report that would reduce the rate of the VRS payments but this figure is not yet available. He hopes this will offset the loss in the state revenues from the 599 funds. It also will mean a reduction in the school system’s VRS which will be a significant savings. He went on to say categorical federal revenues are $250,000 or 8.4 percent reflecting an increase in the social services revenues which were significant this year. Ms. Thomas referred to the reduction in the VRS rate. She mentioned a concern that although there was a big savings this year, there could be problems in the future, and she wondered if Mr. Tucker has any idea of VRS’ future plans. Mr. Tucker responded that he does not know, yet. However, instead of a biennial review of the VRS rates, an annual review will be done. The rates could fluctuate and go higher or they could remain the same or they could be lower. He is unsure if it is better to know this information on a biennial basis so plans can be made over two years or to be on a seesaw of changes each year. March 13, 2000 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 2) Mr. Tucker next mentioned the Fund Balance and pointed out that the beginning Fund Balance of July 1, 1999 was $3,729,162. If the appropriation of over $1.5 million that was made in September is subtracted, there is a current available Fund Balance of approximately $2.16 million. The staff has projected that $500,000 could be used in FY 2000 for the Comprehensive Services Act (CSA); $100,000 for the consultant for Phase One of Meadow Creek Parkway; $100,000 for Juvenile and Domestic Court renovations; and $650,000 for the ACE program for FY 01. This amount for the ACE program is only from the General Fund, and the remainder of the $1.0 million for the ACE program comes from the Tourism Fund. The remaining Fund Balance is $808,509. He is recommending the funding of school buses which is a one time revenue allocation to the schools of $273,000. He referred to the CALAS request to fund its new construction project, and he said the proposal is to allocate $50,000 from the Fund Balance for this project. He said Region Ten also had a fairly significant upgrade in its building program, and $50,000 a year is being proposed until the entire amount is funded. This leaves an ending Fund Balance of $435,509 which is available to the Board in this year’s budget for one time expenses. He reminded the Board members that Paramount has also made a request to the Board, and the staff is recommending this funding be provided from the Tourism Fund rather than the Fund Balance. This amount will probably be $50,000 a year until the funding is completed. The Board begins with a Fund Balance of one time funds of $435,509. The Board Reserve amounts to $92,874, which could change with this work session, and the School Board Reserve is $50,000. He noted that both of these are recurring funds rather than one time funds. Mr. Dorrier inquired if there is a “rainy day” fund. Mr. Tucker replied that the Fund Balance is the “rainy day” fund, and it is currently at $435,509. If the Board uses all of this balance, there will be a zero Fund Balance at the end of this fiscal year. However, the staff is anticipating $2,805,715 as the projected revenue surplus plus projected expenditure savings of $446,527, and beginning July 1,2000, there should be a Fund Balance of $3,252,242. The staff has started considering in this year’s budget allocating some of the Fund Balance that could be used to fund some programs or projects. The Financial Management System upgrade which is anticipated for 2001 would need an allocation of $150,000. In the renovation project of the jail there is a need for additional funds, as well as an additional transfer to the Tourism Fund which will be approximately $382,129. The staff is also recommending other items throughout the budget of $399,175, leaving a projected ending carry-over if the Board approves of the recommendations, of $2,320,938 in next year’s Fund Balance. Ms. Thomas wondered if all of these items are reflected in the budget. Mr. Tucker replied that some of them are not shown. There is some one time funding the Board could help with such as textbooks for the schools. The staff wanted to show what would be in this year’s Fund Balance and what is anticipated for the beginning of the next fiscal year. Mr. Dorrier inquired if the spending for capital projects that are not completed this year is shown in this information. Mr. Tucker answered that these projects are usually carried over if they are already allocated in the CIP fund, but they may not be shown here. He explained that this is strictly a Fund Balance in revenues where savings are anticipated for next year. Mr. Dorrier wondered if construction on the jail project is delayed, will the money be put into next year’s budget. Mr. Tucker responded affirmatively. This money will be reappropriated. He explained, though, that he is talking about an additional amount that is not in the jail budget now, but it is anticipated to be over and above the amount projected two years ago when the project began. These additional costs will need to be allocated from both the City, Albemarle County and Nelson County. Ms. White stated that there is no jail construction money budgeted in the County’s budget. Next, Mr. Dorrier asked if the $2,320,938 of carry-over funds is available for next year. Mr. Tucker answered affirmatively. He said it will be available beginning July 1, 2001. Mr. Perkins inquired if the revenue projections are accurate. Mr. Tucker replied, “yes.” Mr. Dorrier mentioned the $435,509 ending Fund Balance and the projected ending carry- overbBalance of $2,320,938. Mr. Tucker reminded Mr. Dorrier that these are one time dollars and they are not recurring. The Board needs to be careful not to use these funds for recurring expenses, although it is fine to use them for one time expenses. Mr. Dorrier referred to the number of requests to the Board this year for one time funding. Mr. Tucker agreed that these are reflected in items such as CALAS, Region Ten and Paramount, which are one time expenses. Ms. Thomas noted the need to keep cash flow available. Mr. Tucker stated that the staff will let the Board members know if the point is reached where cash flow will need to be protected. He said now there is no problem with the amount of available cash flow. Mr. Martin recalled that last year the cash flow was spent down to nearly $3,000 or $4,000. Ms. White concurred that the cash flow got very low. Mr. Tucker said the cash flow will be low again if all of the $435,509 is spent. Mr. Tucker continued with his presentation by referring to the real estate tax rate of 72 cents. He said if the Board chooses to make a one penny increase in the tax rate, it will generate $645,100. He stated that an average home at $175,000 would have a tax bill of $1,260, which will increase the tax bill by $17.50. He said for each $50,000 increase in real estate value, there will be a $360 increase in additional taxes. Mr. Martin referred to the advertisement about the City’s tax increase. Mr. Tucker responded that the County will have to do the same thing next year. Whenever there is a reassessment, an ad has to be put in the newspaper showing how much the assessment will equate to in terms of the actual rate. He added that when the Board members consider any type of rate increase, they need to consider that next March 13, 2000 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 3) year’s reassessment is anticipated to increase approximately eight percent. This will be on top of any type of tax rate increase. Ms. Thomas pointed out that she thought next year’s reassessment was anticipated to be seven percent. Mr. Tucker stated that the reassessment is anticipated to increase eight percent. Mr. Dorrier inquired if there is information on new homes built in the County and how much revenue is related to them. Mr. Tucker said he has already mentioned the total amount for all new construction, but it is not just for new homes. It also relates to industrial or commercial establishments. Mr. Martin commented that when the question is asked as to whether or not growth pays for itself, the immediate answer is that it does not. He wondered, though, if growth has actually paid for itself since the County has kept the same tax rate for a certain amount of time, but the amount of revenue has increased. Mr. Perkins remarked that reassessments have increased. Mr. Martin agreed, although he said reassessments go up because of growth. Mr. Bowerman pointed out that there are also higher capital expenditures and operating costs. Mr. Martin said he understands that, but if the tax rate has been the same for the last ten years, but the amount of revenues has increased so the County has been able to pass a balanced budget each year without raising taxes, then hasn’t growth paid for itself over that period of time. Mr. Bowerman stated that it has kept pace. Mr. Perkins noted that personal property taxes increased by $2.5 million or 12 percent, so this is growth in personal property. The number of vehicles increased in the County from over 60,000 in 1994 to over 100,000 currently. Mr. Martin stated that he has seen people use just a portion of the numbers to show that growth pays for itself. He said someone builds a house and pays a certain amount of taxes. Yet, there are children in the house who go to the County schools. He added that people say for every house built, it costs the County a certain amount of money. He noted, though, that if the house being built increases the value of the other houses in the neighborhood, and all of that is a result of growth, then this fact has to be considered. It seems clear that growth has paid for itself over the last ten years. Otherwise, the tax rate would have had to be increased. Ms. White stated that this is true except for the Debt Service category. Mr. Bowerman stated that he sees Mr. Martin’s point, and to a large extent, he agrees. Ms. Thomas commented that the whole Planning District captures 65 percent of retail sales, so Albemarle County has a disproportionate amount of retail sales in commercial property that is appraised as well as the sales tax. She remarked that the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County have 85 percent of the sales of the Planning District so it is not the population growth as a whole, but the retail growth has helped a lot. She said part of it is due to population growth, but part of the population has taken place in the outlying counties. Mr. Martin stated that the answer to whether or not growth pays for itself is much more complicated than just saying no. Mr. Dorrier said one of the key points is to separate commercial growth from residential growth, because residential growth doesn’t pay for itself, but commercial growth does. Mr. Martin pointed out that there would not be as much commercial growth without the population growth. Mr. Perkins stated that the 8.2 percent increase in revenues should be enough to fund the additional growth and inflation. Mr. Tucker said when growth in the school system, as well as population growth and inflation are examined, the increase in revenues is slightly under five percent. When this is considered as well as how the County’s revenues have grown, this is a good year. Ms. Thomas commented that Albemarle County is reaching the point where it is more of an urban area in a lot of ways. County officials have been proud of the fact that the service costs remain steady, while the amount of growth and inflation have increased. However, urban-type services and planning are making the cost of services increase. She went on to say it is not just population growth. However, population growth brings on different types of services, more children in the school system and a lot of other things which cause a new level of costs. Mr. Tucker pointed out that the County’s borrowing has made a difference. The tax rate has been maintained because money was borrowed to provide additional schools, improvements and renovations. It is not a bad thing, because most people have to do this in their individual households. Mr. Dorrier stated that he has a chart from the Virginia Farm Bureau showing that owners of farm land require fewer services. The chart indicates that residential land uses in the counties of Virginia require $1.13 of services for each tax dollar collected; commercial and industrial land uses require 97 cents of services for each tax dollar collected; and agricultural land owners require only 23 cents of services for each tax dollar collected. He stated that when discussing tax increases, it goes back to the old argument about service districts, etc. Mr. Tucker responded that this is one reason the County has land use tax on properties. Mr. Tucker then continued with his presentation of the budget. He noted that General Government operations account for $43.4 million or 37 percent of the total budget, which is a $4.0 million or a ten percent increase. He said consideration needs to be given to the fact that the County has a lot of mandated and required programs with Social Services, the jail, ECC, the additional firefighters the County is required to provide in the agreement with the City, and the Tourism transfer. If these things were taken away, the General Government increase would only be about five percent of the General Fund expenditures. He March 13, 2000 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 4) noted that the school transfer is about $56.0 million or 48 percent of the budget, and revenue sharing totals $6.1 million next year or five percent of the budget. Debt Service is $9.6 million or eight percent of the total budget. The base line costs are being driven by such things as salaries and the four percent merit pool; the two percent salary adjustment; the constitutional officers funding; the full year cost of FY00 positions; the health and dental insurance; and VRS Retirement and Life Insurance. He reiterated that General Government’s VRS rate actually decreased this year, which was anticipated, and it was budgeted for a reduction of $188,000. In addition, a slight reduction is expected beyond this amount. The rate for the current year is 11.22, but it has been indicated that the rate should go down to 9.22, or even lower which will mean additional savings. The school system may also get an additional reduction. A three percent funding average has been provided for all of the human services agencies, and operational costs for departments have been level funded. Social Service programs are fairly significant although they are about eight percent funded by the State. He also mentioned the transfer from the Tourism Fund in the amount of $350,000 for the ACE program. Mr. Bowerman asked if level funding means there are fewer employees in the departments. Mr. Tucker answered, “no.” It means that all operations have been level funded, but not necessarily salaries of employees. This involves day to day costs of printing and utilities, etc. Mr. Bowerman inquired if the dollar amount is the same. Mr. Tucker responded affirmatively. Mr. Tucker then explained some of the mandated and required costs: the CSA has increased $200,000; the jail operations are slightly under $1.0 million; ECC Operations/CAD Program have increased $134,339; eight new firefighters are being proposed for April 2001 at $122,150; the Tourism Transfer is funded at $155,280; Social Services Programs are at $413,470; and Revenue Sharing is at $239,307. Mr. Bowerman asked if there was any equipment involved with the funding proposed for the firefighters. Mr. Tucker answered that the funding is for salaries as well as any equipment needed for three months. Mr. Bowerman stated that for the next quarter, no equipment would be included. The amount of money would just be for salaries, so the money would be less than the $122,150. Mr. Tucker replied that this is correct. Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Tucker if he knew the approximate amount of funding for the other three-quarters. Mr. Tucker responded that he does not have this information with him, but he will get it to Mr. Bowerman. Ms. Thomas wondered when the CSA program will be discussed. Mr. Tucker said the CSA program will be discussed later with the Human Services Cost Center. He is just giving the Board an overview of the whole budget at this time. He then talked about increases in other committed costs. The Capital Program has increased approximately $240,000; School Debt Service increased $400,000; General Government Debt Service increased $439,312; and the School Operations Transfer increased by $4,463,770. Mr. Tucker next discussed Albemarle County’s mission which is to promote the general well-being and enhance the quality of life for all citizens through the provision and delivery of the highest level of public service. The County’s goals have been that it will be a high performance organization focused on continuous quality improvement, and the County will have a strong client focus that will exist throughout the organization. There will be an active and effective leadership development model existing for all County employees, and the County strives to have a highly recognized, satisfied and well-compensated work force. He then linked these goals to the strategic plan for the budget. The County strives for continuous quality improvement, and the customer service goal is very paramount in the budget process. He stated that because of the salary increases being proposed based on the consultant’s recommendations, it effects a highly recognized, satisfied and well-compensated work force. He commented that public safety and human development are always priorities, and growth and land use management issues are being addressed in this budget as well as providing for capital infrastructure. _______________ Functional Area Issues and Recommendations Administration "" Mr. Tucker then discussed the cost center of Administration for County Government. The Finance Department makes up approximately 42 percent of this budget; Information Services involves 26 percent; the County Executive’s Office is about ten percent; Human Resources and the County Attorney each make up approximately seven percent; the Board of Supervisors budget involves about five percent; and the Registrar amounts to approximately three percent. He pointed out some of the critical issues under this cost center which are that customer service is the County’s number one priority, and the Quality Improvement Program (QUIP) should be implemented throughout the organization. He said it is desirable to implement individual department work improvement plans and develop a performance management system to measure the success of the County’s strategies and improvement plans. The County wants to continue to attract, develop and retain a highly recognized and well trained work force. The County is preparing for the 2000 Presidential Election and the legislative redistricting that will follow, and it is meeting the administrative demand in the increased number of registered voters. It is also important to recruit and retain an adequate number of qualified election officials. He commented that the County will continue to promote diversity awareness and training as well as provide adequate staff resources for analyses of critical Human Resources issues, including turnover analyses, and strategic planning for recruitment/retention and compensation. He said converting payroll and financial management systems from mainframe to a Windows-based computer system is another critical issue. He then noted the consultants’ recommendations relating to attracting and retaining a highly March 13, 2000 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 5) recognized and well-trained work force involving teachers and classified employees. The proposals in this budget do not necessarily mirror the consultants’ recommendations, but it is as close as possible to the available revenues. The budget has provided for a 4.25 percent teacher scale adjustment, a four percent classified Merit Pool, a pay scale adjustment of three percent to reduce and minimize compression and a two percent market adjustment pool. Mr. Tucker remarked that some of the funding recommendations in the budget are to fund two new voting machines per year at $10,600 and increase the Virginia Voter Registration System printing costs by $400 in the Registrar’s budget. He added that legislative redistricting is also being funded at $10,836, and there are additional presidential election expenses being funded at $10,948 with available year-end carry- over funds. He pointed out some of the unfunded priorities and indicated that the election official pay increase of $5,200 is unfunded. There was a request for a 0.4 FTE expanded Officer Associate III position to full time to address the increased workload in the voter registration program of $10,665 that is unfunded. The budget was unable to fund the expanded Employee Relations Coordinator position at 21 percent for diversity awareness and training in the amount of $6,940, nor the Human Resources Management Analyst at 21 percent in the amount of $12,010. Mr. Perkins wondered if there was any federal money being provided for redistricting. Ms. Gulati answered that no federal money was available for redistricting. Mr. Bowerman asked about the presidential election expenses. Mr. Tucker replied that this funding was for the primary election. Mr. Martin inquired as to when redistricting will be done. Mr. Davis answered that redistricting will take place in June, 2001 just before the end of the fiscal year. Mr. Tucker pointed out a change recommended in the County Attorney’s Office. He said a $20,000 item had been proposed to fund outside counseling which was primarily due to anticipation of the reversion litigation. He stated that now since this has ended, he is recommending that this amount be reduced to $5,000, since there still may be a need for outside counsel for other litigation. He recommended that the remaining $15,000 be shifted to the Board of Supervisors’ reserve. Ms. Thomas called attention to the voter registration section of the budget. She was at another meeting in which the City Registrar situation was being discussed, and the discussion centered around the problem of finding people to work the polls. She noted that the hours are long, and it is a one-day job. The City is increasing the pay for these people as well as breaking the day into half. She asked about the County’s experience as far as getting people to work the polls, and she wondered if an increase in pay should be considered. She noted that the City was paying these people $80 a day, and the request is to increase the pay to $100. Ms. White said the County is having the same experience the City is having since more people are working other jobs and do not have the time to work the polls. She said it is hoped this additional money incentive will help to get people interested. Mr. Martin commented that he thinks a half- day of working the polls instead of a full day makes good sense. Ms. White stated that she is unsure if the County Registrar’s office is considering the half-day positions. Mr. Tucker suggested that the staff talk to the County Registrar to see if a half-day is being considered. He will bring back information on increasing the stipend to $100 a day for these poll workers, if the Board members are interested. Ms. White noted that the County Registrar is moving to a new location on Pantops. Mr. Bowerman asked if this is a convenient location for the public. Mr. Tucker stated that Pantops is centrally located. He is unsure how this will work for DMV purposes, but the move is part of the voter/motor approach. Ms. White commented that a large percentage of voter registration is already at DMV, and there are very few who actually come into the County Office Building. She said it is an automatic procedure at DMV. Every time someone goes to DMV there is a requirement to ask the person if he or she wants to register to vote, so the DMV personnel are already doing this. Ms. Thomas mentioned the long history of the County Registrar being located in the County Office Building. Mr. Bowerman wondered if an employee in the Finance Department would have the capacity to register someone, if a person came to the County Office Building and wanted to be registered. Mr. Tucker asked if Mr. Bowerman is suggesting that a branch office could be located at the County Office Building. Mr. Bowerman asked if this type of situation could be considered. Ms. Thomas pointed out that people can now register by mail, so there would only be a form involved. Next, Ms. Thomas stated that she is concerned about the Employee Relations Coordinator position, assuming that it has something to do with trying to make all of the staff work better in diversity. Ms. White said it is her understanding that if the position was not funded, some reclassification of staff and organizational changes would take place to try to be able to bring this person on board. Mr. Bob Brandenburger, Deputy Director of Human Resources, stated that the function of the position is still being performed this year at half-time, but it is hoped the position will go to full-time next year. The full-time position will be built into the Human Resources Department with current resources, although the cooperation of the school system as far as taking on some of the long term responsibilities will be necessary. Ms. Thomas commented that last week the County’s web page was mentioned on WINA, and the County’s staff was praised as far as community relations were concerned. She said since these types of things are sometimes questioned, she thought the comments were timely. ____________ March 13, 2000 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 6) Judicial "" Mr. Foley discussed the Judicial Department cost center. The Judicial section is about 2.2 percent of the total budget which is $2,618,982. The Sheriff’s Department makes up 46 percent of the Judicial budget. The next largest sections are the Clerk of the Circuit Court at 25 percent and the Commonwealth’s Attorney Office at 22 percent. The Circuit Court, General District Court and Magistrate make up the remainder of the Judicial area function. He pointed out that there are 13 Sheriff’s deputies currently to staff the courts and serve civil papers. The Juvenile and Domestic Court docket has been expanded to include a third judge, which has increased the workload. He stated that 8,600 inmates were transported during the calendar year 1999 for about 135,000 miles. As far as the hunting enforcement issue is concerned, in FY 1999/2000 there were 111 calls for service which is up 29 percent, and 220 hunters were checked for compliance, which increased by ten percent. He said 20 summonses were issued. He noted that the key issue of the program is to free up the game wardens who made 80 arrests, which is a 27 percent increase. He discussed the critical issues which indicate that the State has shifted the expenses of the constitutional officers by about 15 percent to the localities since 1990. He explained that the County now pays for 68 percent of these salaries, and this has increased from 53 percent in FY 1990. Mr. Bowerman asked for clarification as to whether the State shifted the expenses or whether the County officials recognized that the State was not meeting its commitment so they chose to add extra funding. Mr. Foley answered that he believes it was a change in revenues to support this office. Ms. White stated that the State’s funding is usually flat, and the State has had flat operational costs for the last five years. As the County’s expenses increase, there is a larger percentage of local money going into this category. The State has not reduced the funding, and it has even increased, but it increased at a much smaller range than the total expenses. Mr. Bowerman commented that he is trying to figure out if the funding had changed. Certain issues were brought to past Boards, and this Board chose to meet those needs. Mr. Tucker agreed that this is correct. Mr. Dorrier asked if there is a percentage shown on individual budgets as far as what the County has funded for constitutional officers. Ms. Gulati answered that there is a graph shown for each constitutional officer. Mr. Foley continued with the presentation by saying that the salary increases the state has provided for the officers total approximately 8.74 percent which requires a match. This has been done, but it is a critical issue as far as keeping up with the matches the County is required to provide. He then noted that the statewide implementation of the digital imaging system is a critical issue, but it is going to be funded 100 percent by the State. He said another critical issue relates to the County continuing to provide increased local funding to support the judicial offices, both in salaries and operating costs. He next referred to the critical issues associated with the Commonwealth’s Attorney Office. He reported that Mr. Camblos, the Commonwealth’s Attorney is planning to be at this meeting to discuss his situation. Mr. Foley said there is a perceived salary disparity between the Commonwealth’s Attorney Office and the County Attorney’s Office. He referred to a stipend that has been included in the budget for a while which the Board specifically approved to address salary issues that the Commonwealth’s Attorney had within his budget. The State has now provided some additional revenue, so there is a decision to be made as far as whether the $11,664 provided by the County is something Mr. Camblos can use to redistribute compensation among other employees in his office. Mr. Bowerman inquired if the issue is whether or not the Commonwealth’s Attorney should be allowed to keep the funding or whether it should be returned to the County. Mr. Foley answered affirmatively. Mr. Tucker explained that Mr. Camblos has revenue in his budget that he would like to spread among other attorneys in his office. Mr. Tucker stated that he had indicated to Mr. Camblos that he cannot make this change, and the Board of Supervisors will have to approve this reallocation. He believes Mr. Camblos will make such a request to the Board today. Mr. Foley pointed out that the staff felt this issue should stay in line with what is being done for all the other departments. This is obviously the Board’s decision, although the staff thought it should be considered as part of the compensation analysis that is going on with the two percent salary pool. Mr. Foley next talked about critical issues for the Sheriff’s Office. He pointed out that there is inadequate staffing of the Juvenile and Domestic Court due to the expanding court docket with the addition of a third judge because of case loads. He said two court security deputies are needed to operate screening devices and to escort prisoners. He added that maintaining public safety equipment standards comparable to the Police Department, continued re-negotiation of the Scottsville agreement, continued support for hunting enforcement and an anticipated ten percent increase in the number of inmates to transport, as well as writs and warrants to serve are other critical issues. He noted that the Scottsville agreement will need to be reviewed with the Sheriff and any changes should be made by June 1, 2000. He discussed the recommendations for the Sheriff’s Office which are to continue the Scottsville agreement, continue support for the Hunting Enforcement Program, and support local matching funds for three additional Juvenile and Domestic Court deputies contingent upon state funding. The staff is waiting to hear from the state as to whether the Sheriff’s request has been granted. He pointed out, though, that if it is granted, it will require a local match, and it would have a net impact of approximately $56,000. He stated that unfunded priorities in the Sheriff’s Office relate to funding for police supplies and other operating expenses. Mr. Martin inquired if Sheriff Ed Robb would like to speak to the Board. March 13, 2000 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 7) Sheriff Robb stated that the documents he has provided support themselves, and he feels his requests are reasonable. He added that he came into the office with certain expectations to do the best job he possibly could for the County in order to provide for safe and secure court rooms and to transport prisoners safely. The deputies are doing a great job of delivering the writs and warrants, but his staff is pushed to the limit, and additional staff is necessary. He would like to bring the Sheriff’s Office to the same level of service as the Albemarle County Police Department. Mr. Bowerman asked about the operating police supplies and office expenses that the staff is not recommended to be funded, which amounts to around $20,000. Sheriff Robb replied that training and police supplies, such as shotguns and ammunition, etc., as well as bringing vehicles up to standards so they will be able to perform safely are some of the things being requested. The entire list is provided in the documents. Mr. Dorrier informed the other Board members that he has been working with the Sheriff and the Town of Scottsville on negotiating the new agreement on law enforcement. The plan was to make the presentation tonight to the Scottsville Town Council. He noted that one of the issues is the funding, and the recommendation is going to be that the Town of Scottsville fund 75 percent of the Scottsville deputy’s position, with the County funding 25 percent. The Sheriff’s deputy is to be available for policing within a ten mile radius of the Town and will provide support for the Police Department in southern Albemarle. Mr. Perkins asked if the Compensation Board is involved with the addition of the third judge or if everything is based on population. Sheriff Robb responded that the Compensation Board is involved with the request for three deputies. He explained that the extra deputies are needed to meet the transportation demands, because two to four vehicle trips per day are being made, since the staff has to transport juveniles for the City and the County. He stated that regular trips are being made to the Security Complex in order to transport the additional prisoners there. He noted that deputies are also needed to meet the problems in the courtrooms, as well as for monitoring purposes. He said until cameras are put into place in the holding cells, deputies have to be assigned there. All of these problems are not going to go away during the next year, and they are going to get even greater. He used the Compensation Board’s own formula to show the need for the three additional deputies, but he is unsure if the Compensation Board will honor his request. Mr. Tucker said he believes Mr. Perkins was wondering if the additional judge would help with the situation of gaining the three additional deputies from the Compensation Board. Sheriff Robb answered that it probably will not help at this time, but it could next year. He said three deputies are actually needed now to provide the type of service needed to make the court rooms safe and secure. Mr. Dorrier wondered if this is the type of thing that could involve the County bringing a lawsuit against the Compensation Board. Sheriff Robb replied that he does not anticipate such action at this time. He said he had been in office since January 1, 2000, and he cannot express how complimentary and how very satisfactory the relationship has been with all the County Government offices. He has been impressed because the County Government has been extremely cooperative, and he is very appreciative. Ms. Thomas pointed out that the Hunting Enforcement program has decreased in its funding, and she wondered if this is a decrease in the effort or is there some other explanation. Sheriff Robb stated that he tried to make his budget as realistic as possible, and he is not trying to spend every dollar. Instead, he would like to do the job with the people who are already there. Ms. Thomas reiterated that she was wondering if the effort in the Hunting Enforcement program has decreased. Sheriff Robb answered that the effort has absolutely not decreased. He said it has increased. Ms. Gulati told Ms. Thomas that the decrease in funding for the Hunting Enforcement Program was a result of the benefit change. Mr. Tucker informed the Chairman that Mr. Camblos has arrived. Mr. Martin said the Board had already discussed the Commonwealth’s Attorney section of the budget, but he told Mr. Camblos he could speak if he so chooses. Mr. Tucker stated that the staff has introduced the issue about the additional revenue included in Mr. Camblos’ budget that he would like to use to provide more funding to his assistants. Mr. Camblos remarked that the Compensation Board has a Career Attorney Incentive Program that is focused on attorneys who have a few years of experience to try to keep them in the prosecution ranks as opposed to going to private industry. He added that level one prosecutors with three years experience are eligible for this program. There is one attorney in his office, Ms. Murray, who is a level one attorney, and she became eligible in early January of this year for the Program. The Compensation Board asks a few questions, and if they are answered correctly, then an increase in pay is automatic. He commented that approximately $7,200 was allocated to his office by the Compensation Board as additional funding for Ms. Murray. The Compensation Board has Ms. Murray’s salary at $34,000 or $35,000, and it doesn’t consider the stipend the County has allocated. He said with the County’s stipend, Ms. Murray’s salary has gone past everybody in the office except himself and the Deputy Commonwealth’s Attorney, and he does not believe this is appropriate for the person who is the youngest attorney in the office. The essence of what happened is that the additional $7,200 of funding came to the County, and the stipend was for her, specifically. He then mentioned that another attorney in his office, is a very good prosecutor, and he is a good emissary for the County and a good public relations person. He does a great job, and his salary is only a couple of dollars different from Ms. Murray’s, even though he has about four more years of experience. Mr. Camblos said he is asking that the Board allow him to switch the stipend of $7,200 from one attorney to other people within the office. He emphasized that he is not asking for additional funding but instead he is asking that the stipend already there be allowed to stay within his office. Mr. Dorrier stated that a constitutional officer should be allowed to use such funding at his March 13, 2000 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 8) discretion. Mr. Bowerman remarked that he does not feel comfortable removing the funding from that office since it came from the Compensation Board. If Mr. Camblos feels he can get a more effective and efficient staff with this existing funding, then he thinks he should be given the latitude to do so. Mr. Martin stated that he thinks the Board should stick to tradition, and he suggested that this item be added to the list of things for further discussion. Mr. Bowerman indicated that he was interested in holding this item for discussion, and he wanted to be certain that the amount was $7,200. Mr. Tucker said he would have the specific amount for the Board when the matter is discussed. Mr. Camblos commented that if he is allowed to use this stipend in the way he is proposing, it will help him to get all of his attorneys in the proper relationship to each other. Mr. Bowerman remarked that he would also like to add the items not recommended for funding in the Sheriff’s budget to the list for discussion. ____________ Public Safety "" Next, Mr. Foley discussed the Public Safety section of the budget, which represents about 11.6 percent of the County’s total budget and comprises $13,611,497. The largest share of the Public Safety budget is 53 percent which goes to the County Police Department. Fire and Rescue Services represent 22 percent, the Regional Jail amounts to 10 percent, ECC involves eight percent and Inspections and Other Public Safety make up the remainder of the Public Safety budget at seven percent. There are 102 sworn police officers who patrol 740 square miles, and there are approximately 1.25 officers per 1,000 residents. However, the standard is 1.5 police officers per 1,000 residents. He added that in 1999 there were 41,050 police calls for service which increased one percent from 1998, and there were about 2,467 motor vehicle accidents in 1999 which increased 2.8 percent from 1998. He remarked that incident reports increased 2.4 percent from 1998. The seven school resource officers currently in place involve one supervisor, three resource officers in the high school and three in the middle schools. He noted that three school resource officers were added in the current fiscal year for the middle schools. As far as the Fire and Rescue category is concerned, there are seven volunteer fire companies and three volunteer rescue squads. There are 12 career firefighters providing daytime coverage at three County fire stations, and there were 12,525 fire calls for service in 1998 which increased approximately 9.4 percent from 1997. He said total fire losses in 1998 were $760,000. He stated that fire prevention conducted 996 building inspections, and there was a 2.5 percent decrease in violations over last year, and 194 complaints were answered which increased 29 percent over last year. He pointed out that Fire and Rescue also administered over 13,000 hours of volunteer training programs which increased 31 percent over FY00. He mentioned that critical issues regarding the Police category relate to: Focus on community policing efforts, particularly in schools; an increase in growth related traffic problems and enforcement demand; a need for greater specialization and expertise in accident reconstruction, Forensic Unit, etc.; an increase in record keeping demands because of calls for service and mandated domestic violence reporting; maximizing street officers by transferring administrative duties to civilian personnel; meeting accreditation requirements in property/evidence control by expanding part-time Evidence/Property Clerk position to full-time; and replacing expiring grant funds with local dollars for 12 officers, (including 2 SRO’s), one technical support position, one crime analyst, one crime prevention specialist and two victim witness staffers. He also noted that $112,260 has been included in this budget to pick up lost grant funds. Mr. Foley then described funding recommendations for the Police Department which are to: provide ongoing salary, operating expenses and one patrol vehicle for two SRO positions added in mid- FY00 of $112,805; as well as to request grant funded positions and evaluate for local funding during the regular budget process. He said word has been received that the County has been approved for two COPS grants that were not included in the budget, which must have a local match in order to fund them. He went on to say this budget further recommends that ongoing local funds be provided to retain the County Crime Analyst position after the federal grant expires in FY00, which is $38,436 as well as funding specialized training equipment with available carry-over funds at year’s end in the amount of $23,519. He said some of the unfunded priorities relate to: expanding Evidence/Property Clerk Positions from part time to full-time to address accreditation issues and manage property at an amount of $8,696; hiring a Civilian Patrol Support Assistant to handle administrative duties and free up sworn officers for street duty in the amount of $30,442; a 1.5 Office Associate 1/Receptionist positions to address records management demands at $32,331; additional overtime for specialized training at $38,273; and two traffic officers. He reiterated that the County has just received notice that the grants submitted have been approved, and the County’s cost to match the approximate $143, 000 in grants totals about $73,000. Mr. Bowerman inquired if the County will get any assistance when the CAD system is fully operational in terms of an overlap with records needs at the Police Department. Chief John Miller answered that the Computer Aided Dispatch System will help especially in the area of civilian personnel and calls coming into the ECC Center. The CAD system will eliminate a lot of work that is currently being done by hand. Mr. Bowerman then asked about the Crime Analyst. He is trying to understand the relationship between the CADS request and the Crime Analyst position. Chief Miller responded that the entire package includes the Police Department’s Record Management System and the Computer Dispatching System, and this is the information the Crime Analyst will use. He explained that currently in-house information is being captured. However, all the data that comes through the ECC center is not being captured. He said most of March 13, 2000 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 9) the information that is self initiated by the officer directly is being caught on administrative cards, but the resources to put the information into the system is not available. There has never been a picture of what an officer actually does on the street, and the only picture available shows only one-third of the officers’ activities, which happens with the actual radio call. There is a lot more going on in the street that is not captured with radio calls. He added that with the CAD system all the information will be captured, and it will be the first time there will be a complete picture of what is happening on the street. Mr. Martin asked if Chief Miller would like to make any general comments about the budget to the Board. Chief Miller mentioned that there a couple of things coming on line to help with the workload, and certainly the Dispatch Center will help. The opening of the new Intake Center will really have an impact. He added that by computerizing the booking system, being able to take a prisoner directly to the jail and have the magistrate there, being able to do the paperwork, turning the prisoner over to the Complex personnel and having them do the booking will save the Police Department a tremendous amount of time. He said hiring the Crime Analyst is also going to help. He noted that the grant which just ran out was for a regional Crime Analyst. He explained that now the City has hired its own Analyst, and the University doesn’t need one and is not using such a position. There is a strong need for the County to have its own Crime Analyst, and this person’s job assignment can be combined with accreditation management duties. There is currently a sworn officer in accreditation management, and this officer could go back on the street. He remarked that one of the unfunded items relates to the funding for the expanded Evidence and Property Clerk Position. He said a tremendous amount of work goes into this function. He pointed out that over 3,000 pieces of evidence are being handled, and there are two half time persons currently, but if one could be shifted to full-time, it would be a great help. Mr. Dorrier remarked that he supports Chief Miller 100 percent on his last statement. He said police work today is highly technical and complicated and solving a crime takes a tremendous effort as far as scientific analysis and DNA evidence is concerned. The County needs to bring the Property Room up to the 21st Century, and he would strongly recommend that the Evidence/Property Clerk’s position be funded to full-time. Mr. Martin said this would be added to the list for further discussion. Ms. Thomas agreed. This was the main budget related item noted in the Accreditation Report. Mr. Bowerman asked about the physical facility associated with this technician. Chief Miller said the physical facility was a point made in the Accreditation Report that cannot be addressed at this time. Mr. Bowerman wondered if this has been rectified in any way. Chief Miller answered affirmatively. He is in the process of doing so currently. Ms. Thomas referred to the Crime Analyst position. It looks as though the County is picking up a position of its own which will cost a lot more than the grant. She referred to Chief Miller’s comment that the City has its own position. The position looks expensive, and it also looks as though it is a reduction in regional cooperation. Chief Miller replied that he does not see this as a reduction in regional cooperation. He said when a Crime Analyst position is examined, certain things have to be considered, and these things have an effect on what is happening in the County. He stated that information is taken from the City, but there is also a large part of administrative analysis involved as far as how the County is using its resources with the Albemarle County Police Department. Mr. Bowerman wondered if there is potential for cooperation between the City Analyst and the County Analyst, because he would think many crimes would cross jurisdictional lines. Chief Miller answered affirmatively. This was the whole purpose relating to the Regional Crime Information Center so all of the offenses, etc., could be on the same network, and everybody could use the same information. Mr. Bowerman pointed out that the Citizen Volunteer Group involved with the Police Department has increased. Chief Miller concurred. Mr. Martin stated that he would like to add the Civilian Patrol Support Assistant to the list for further discussion. He noted that one of the things happening in his own office is that when there are officers without clerical support they spend more time doing clerical duties which is a waste of resources. He said with this system, it sounds as though the police officers will not have to spend as much time doing paperwork and can spend more time doing their jobs. Mr. Bowerman commented that he sees all of this under the umbrella of the City and County having one center which would be used in the most efficient way possible both interjurisdictional and jurisdictional. He concurs with both positions. Mr. Dorrier wondered if the County has studied the matter of separate pay scales for police officers, since some localities have separate pay scales for public safety employees. Mr. Foley responded that this is one of the things to be examined by the Compensation Study Committee. Ms. Thomas stated that when the County gets grants, they always look good. She said although it is easy to approve a grant, she always has a concern that it will become the County’s responsibility sometime in the future. County officials need to make certain that the County Crime Analyst position is the right kind of position rather than simply thinking it is free, and it should be carried further. Mr. Bowerman concurred that the County gets underwriting help in the beginning with grants, and then they become the County’s responsibilities. Mr. Foley commented that the staff is monitoring the goal of 1.5 officers to 1,000 residents. He said since the County is still under this figure, he feels the grant is an opportunity to help achieve this goal. If the March 13, 2000 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 10) County was above the goal, he thinks the analysis would be very different. Mr. Martin pointed out that he has a constituent who is a struggling single mother. He said she gets extremely upset when she sees people in her community not changing their license plates and not getting County decals. He understands, though, that there are all types of complications with this issue. Mr. Tucker recalled that Mr. Martin had brought up this matter at a previous meeting. He has discussed this concern with the appropriate persons. Chief Miller noted that as of midnight a week ago, the police officers have written over 180 decal violations. Mr. Martin told Chief Miller that the person to whom he referred lives in Stonehenge. ____________ Next, Mr. Foley discussed the Emergency Communications Center (ECC) which accounts for about eight percent of the total Public Safety budget. He noted that some of the critical issues involve additional operating costs required for the new facility, as well as installation and operation of the new CAD system, which has already been discussed. The recommendation this year is to fund a $134,339 operating budget increase for the new facility and the CAD operational costs, including three new Information Systems support positions. There is a reallocation of $314, 922 earmarked for E-911 capital expenses to offset the increased budget as well as to fund future maintenance expenses for the new 800 MHz radio system. This money has been set aside for some of the capital projects related to the ECC and the radio system. He also explained that the funding reallocated this year on a temporary basis will need to be put back into the ECC operation and some of those related areas in the future as higher costs will continue for both the total operation of the ECC, as well as some of the impact from the 800 system. He added that 64 percent of the ECC budget is funded with the County E-911 surcharge revenues which is $684,355. Mr. Martin inquired if the surcharge is actually paying for all the needs of the ECC. Mr. Foley answered, “no.” Mr. Martin mentioned a comment he heard that the 800 MHz system would soon become obsolete. Mr. Foley replied that the comment usually made is a general one about how fast technology is changing. He said everyone with whom the staff has talked has indicated that there is a horizon in the future where this system may become obsolete, but it could be ten years or more. He explained that Fauquier County, as well as other localities, are taking the same approach as Albemarle County as far as putting these systems in place. He stated that perhaps one day through satellite there won’t be any more towers, but no one can give such assurance at this time. Mr. Martin commented that the person to whom he referred was not talking in terms of towers versus satellites, but in the methodology being used. He added that part of what was being said is that now, through a patchwork system, every Sheriff’s officer as well as the City and County police officers have the full shoulder radios where they can all communicate within their departments, so they are never alone. He remarked that this person said when the County goes to the 800 MHz system there is going to be a time frame when individual officers will be by themselves and will not be able to communicate with their departments. Mr. Foley pointed out that Tom Hansen, with ECC, is present at this meeting. Mr. Foley said that police officers may have to change channels to pick up different tower arrangements for officers to talk to one another. Mr. Martin asked if there are any negative implications with this system, in terms of operations, about which the Board has not heard. Mr. Hansen replied, “no.” He went on to say it is the newest technology that is available for public safety, and it is actually the technology the FCC is pushing toward public safety agencies. He has supplied information to Mr. Tucker’s office showing the large number of communication centers and jurisdictions within Virginia that are actually moving to the 800 MHz technology. He said, though, because of all the fast technology changes, he would agree with Mr. Foley that there is no projection as to what is going to happen over the next five to ten years. However, he currently feels very secure in the ability of the system, and he knows of no lag time which would increase the ability for all of the public safety agents to be able to communicate with each other very quickly. Mr. Martin asked if there will ever be a time when the officer cannot communicate with someone else. Mr. Bowerman pointed out that five percent of the County’s area won’t be covered, but this is less than the amount covered now. Mr. Hansen said the system is designed for at least 95 percent coverage, but with any type of system, including the one presently in the County, there will never be 100 percent coverage. Mr. Martin inquired as to the current percentage of coverage in the County. Mr. Hansen answered that he cannot say for certain, but he would speculate that the percentage is somewhere within the 80s. Mr. Martin said he wanted to make sure if the County is going to spend this much money that it is a system that is wanted and needed. Ms. Thomas mentioned that she talked to someone in Fauquier County who indicated that County officials there were being pushed toward the 160 MHz system instead of the 800 MHz system. Mr. Foley stated the staff has followed up on this situation. Mr. Hansen explained that Albemarle County’s staff member was told by a representative of Fauquier County that there is a citizen who is upset because one of the tower sites is going to be built on a site adjoining the property where his house is located. This citizen is paralleling a separate proposal on his own in the 160 MHz range and is supplying this information to Fauquier County’s Board of Supervisors. However, Fauquier’s Board of Supervisors has applied for a 20 channel, 800 MHz system and is moving forward with this project. Ms. Thomas said the person to whom she had talked was a member of the Fauquier County Board of Supervisors. Mr. Foley recalled that the information he received indicated that since the citizen came forward when this project was being discussed, the Fauquier Board members told him if he would like to bring them March 13, 2000 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 11) some more information about this matter, they would consider it. In the meantime, they would move forward with the 800 MHz system and wait for the citizen to report back to them. Mr. Foley said Fauquier is taking an approach similar to Albemarle County’s, but Albemarle County is slightly ahead as far as tower sites and total costs. Mr. Martin stated that he just wanted to feel comfortable that the County was moving in the right direction. He remembers a department that spent a lot of money for new technology, but the program never did what it was expected to do, and it was a disaster. Mr. Foley mentioned that the ECC, the City, the University and the County staffs have all been working together to put together a detailed Executive Summary that will come to the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, the City Council and the University to lay out all the reasons why this system has been chosen, the benefits of it, the improvements involved, and why it is where the area needs to be in terms of technology currently. Mr. Tucker pointed out that several localities already have the 800 MHz system. He said Mr. Foley came from an 800 MHz system in Chesterfield to Albemarle County, and Chesterfield’s system worked in the same way the Albemarle County staff is anticipating this system will work. ____________ Mr. Foley then discussed the Fire and Rescue area of the budget, which makes up approximately 22 percent of the total Public Safety expenditures. He mentioned that some of the critical issues in this area involve providing staffing for the new Southern Fire Station in FY02. He explained that this coming fiscal year’s budget includes eight firefighters hired within the last quarter of this fiscal year. It is anticipated that the new fire station will be completed sometime within the August to September time frame, and the volunteers are working together with County staff to try to figure out a way to recruit volunteers so it can be a joint career volunteer station as it is in the rest of the County. He stated that it would take 12 firefighters to man the station around the clock, and it is hoped the extra four firefighters can be handled with volunteer staffing. This situation will probably have to be reviewed next year to see if the recruitment of volunteers has been successful. He indicated that other critical issues involve meeting significant increases in the fire prevention workload, since inspections have increased 83 percent over the past year, permit requests are up 32 percent and hazardous materials incidents have increased 26 percent. He said meeting the increased administrative workload is another critical issue which involves the number of incoming calls, training class applications and notices and Fire Prevention related administration. Other critical issues relate to providing up-to-date training materials for volunteers such as courses being taught as well as some of the specialized instruction in officer development, hazardous materials management and continuing education. He said equipping each fire and rescue unit with Thermal Imaging Cameras and providing Medical Director services no longer provided on a volunteer basis are also critical. Recommendations include funding eight new firefighters for the Southern Station in April 2001 which is estimated at approximately $123,000. He explained that about a $300,000 impact is expected in the following year to make up the difference for the other three quarters of the year. He said other recommendations include the funding of one full-time Fire Prevention Inspector to deal with the increased workload at a net cost of $31,959; funding the Operational Medical Director’s position at $12,000; and funding two of five Thermal Imaging Cameras with expected FY00 carryover funds of $34,000. He explained that other Thermal Imaging Cameras will be phased in for other stations over time. He added that the unfunded priorities involve updating the fire and rescue training materials and professional development for the Training Officer at $12,500; resale of training materials to volunteers at a net cost of $3,100; and one full-time Office Associate II to address administrative workload increases at $24,955. Mr. Bowerman asked what is meant by the resale of training materials to volunteers. Ms. Thomas responded that materials are bought and then resold to those being trained. Mr. Mark Spicer explained that materials are purchased for a class, and the students will then purchase the manuals. Mr. Bowerman stated that since the manuals are used for volunteers to become qualified, the County can at least supply the materials that work toward their skill level. Mr. Martin wondered if the County could have problems with the situation of having eight firefighters and four volunteers at the Southern Station. He said it appears to him a bad situation is being set up where the paid firefighters are in the majority. Mr. Bowerman pointed out that the alternative was to pay all of the 12 firefighters, which was recognition that this station was not fitting into the same mold as the others. He stated that now the station does not have the four volunteers, but through the Chiefs and Captains Association, it is hoped these people can be located. Mr. Martin wondered if eight volunteers could be located. Mr. Perkins asked how many full-time firefighters are at the Seminole Trail Fire Station. Mr. Bowerman replied that the Seminole Trail Fire Station has quite a few volunteers, and a lot of them are students. He said people have to be found who are convenient to the station, and who can be trained to be experienced officers. The recruitment officer needs to keep new people coming in to get on board experience, so that as facilities are added, there are people who are approximate to the places with the necessary level of proficiency. Mr. Martin inquired if the volunteers are in the minority at the Seminole Trail Fire Station. Mr. Bowerman answered that the volunteers are very much in the majority at the Seminole Station, and this is the case in all the other County stations. Mr. Martin asked again if the Southern Station situation could cause problems by having more paid firefighters than volunteers. Mr. Spicer and Mr. Bowerman answered, “no.” Mr. Spicer said the volunteers at the Seminole Station involve a rotation of shift work. March 13, 2000 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 12) Mr. Bowerman explained that the key is to get as many volunteers as possible as soon as possible which goes back to training and keeping new people coming into the organization. He said, otherwise, it will cause the County to move away from the type of system it already has in operation. He stated that it has been the County’s objective to try to have a hybrid system, and that is why 12 people were proposed to be hired at the Southern Station. Mr. Foley noted that there is currently discussion about a Volunteer Coordinator position. Ms. Thomas mentioned that this position is not proposed, and she would like to add the position to the list to be discussed further. Mr. Dorrier remarked that in the southern part of the County there are several firefighters from different counties who participate in the Scottsville Fire Department. He said for some reason, since they come from Buckingham, Nelson and Fluvanna Counties, they don’t get reimbursed for the necessary training. He asked if anyone can tell him the reason for this situation. Mr. Spicer responded that it seems volunteers from other jurisdictions don’t get exemptions for personal property nor free decals. Mr. Dorrier said this is a big thing for these people because they are volunteering their time and energy. There is a small amount of money involved, and he thinks the County should look into the possibility of reimbursing these people. Mr. Bowerman indicated that this is being considered. Mr. Martin suggested that these volunteers be given some compensation for their services. Mr. Bowerman stated that there are a lot of issues dealing with retention and training and the volunteer system continuing into the future. This system saves the County money, and the contribution the people make to the community should be recognized. Mr. Spicer said there has been a lot of discussion about the career paid system at the Chiefs and Captains meeting, and there seems to be more skepticism there about the volunteer system than there is on the stations’ part to try to get volunteers. He said that is why the coordinator’s position is something the Board should discuss. Mr. Bowerman noted that the Chiefs and Captains feel very strongly a job description should be written and the position filled by somebody who is specialized and has the proper skills. Mr. Martin agreed that a coordinator’s position is important since there is the possibility of a Northern Fire Station. He thinks there are a lot of people who need to start contributing to this service, especially in Forest Lakes. Mr. Bowerman concurred. ____________ The Board recessed at 2:55 p.m. and reconvened at 3:08 p.m. ____________ Mr. Tucker summarized the Regional Jail budget. He indicated that the County continues to fund a large number of inmates, and there are currently 380 to 400 inmates housed at the jail per day, compared to a rated capacity of about 329. He recalled that years ago, when the expansion was being considered, there was a debate regarding the size of the expansion. He added that City officials felt it needed to be at a lower capacity which is where it was currently expanded. The County is providing additional operating and personnel costs including 31 new state funded correctional officers and 6 locally funded positions. The increased cost of 25 percent required an operating reserve and expanded debt service, and there is a $1,000,000 operating budget increase requested for FY01. He added that the recommendation is to fund half of the additional correctional officers in July, 2000 and the remaining half in October 2000. He explained that in this way the officers can be staggered in as the new addition and renovated portion are opened. He said other recommendations involve funding one-half year for locally funded positions, as well as to fund two substance abuse counselors for the Therapeutic Community Program at Region Ten. This will save the Jail budget about $77,000. The last recommendation is to fund the required operating reserve and debt service. Mr. Martin suggested that discussion of the Regional Jail portion of the budget be deferred until Ms. Humphris can be present. ____________ Next, Mr. Foley discussed the Community Criminal Justice Board (CCJB) budget. He noted that the critical issues involve grant funding for the Criminal Justice Planner position which expires June 30, 2000; ongoing local funding of $13,848 requested (through TJPDC) for the County’s share of the Board’s operational expenses; and the expanded role for a planner position in the regional analysis. The recommendation is to fund the County Crime Analyst position in the Police Department at $38,436 in lieu of the Regional Planner at TJPDC. He pointed out that the City has already hired a similar position to handle the City’s needs. There is no ongoing funding for the CCJB and no funding to replace grant funds for the Regional Planner at CCJB. Ms. White stated that Pat Smith, with Offender Aid and Restoration, has asked to say a few words representing the CCJB. Ms. Smith noted that this request was made through Nancy O’Brien, but Ms. Smith is on a committee for the CCJB which has been examining the funding. Ms. Smith said there is a meeting tonight of the CCJB, and the Board of Supervisors will be receiving a letter from the CCJB signed by all the members asking that the Supervisors reconsider this request. This is a very specific service, and the other localities the CCJB serves have recommended funding it. Albemarle County, though, has not made such a recommendation. Mr. Bowerman asked if the position would be less expensive with the addition of the City and March 13, 2000 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 13) County analyst position in place. Ms. Smith said this is possible, but Nancy O’Brien could better answer this question. She reiterated that the CCJB meeting is tonight, and the topic will be discussed. She added that the CCJB just found out about this matter, and it is something that needs discussion. She is unsure of the amount of money involved, but half of it is coming from the outlying counties. Mr. Dorrier stated that it makes more sense to him to have a regional approach to crime analysis than having a strictly local approach. Mr. Bowerman said he believes a hybrid situation is possible which the CCJB Board can consider as far as the resources that will be in place in the City and County. He added that the job description might change, but by working with these two assets, as well as the Planning Commission, it will be a better analysis of crime in the region. He stated that with this plan there may be something the County needs to fund. Ms. Smith agreed that this could be true. Ms. Thomas mentioned that a couple of things in the report from the Crime Analyst caught her attention. The first one was that the area does not have a criminal justice system except in bits and pieces. She commented that the CCJB is the first time all of the components have gotten together and worked with a professional planner who is doing nothing but dealing with these types of issues. She remarked that it must have been a very rewarding experience because members of the CCJB asked the Supervisors to continue the funding. She had thought it was a positive addition to the criminal system in this region, but she is unsure how it fits in with the desires of the County Police Chief. She added that considering a hybrid situation is a good suggestion. Mr. Perkins suggested that perhaps such a situation would be for the County to fund one-half of the $38,436, and the other localities would fund the other one-half. Ms. Smith said the funding is based on percentages of the services the localities are receiving, as well as population, and the City’s and County’s percentages are higher than the other localities. Mr. Perkins stated that if the County pays one-half of the funding, then it would expect to get one-half of the services. He also noted that the County has more population than the other localities. Ms. Smith asked if the Supervisors have a recommendation for her to take to the CCJB tonight. Mr. Bowerman asked if this funding is in the budget to be considered later. Mr. Tucker said nothing has been done regarding this matter, although it is in the Police Department’s budget. Ms. Smith noted that she is not trying to conflict with the Police Department. Mr. Dorrier suggested that perhaps someone from the Police Department should go to the CCJB meeting. Ms. Smith replied that Chief Miller has been coming to the meetings, as well as Chief Rittenhouse. There has been some discussion, but she does not know what happened, because she was not present. Mr. Martin stated that he does not think the Supervisors should give a recommendation at this time, because the conversation seems to be a bit speculative. He suggested, though, that Chief Miller consider the concepts and ideas the Supervisors have been discussing. Mr. Bowerman said the situation should be considered as a regional problem, and a plan could be worked out within this context recognizing that Albemarle County may have specific needs. Ms. Smith commented that a bill was passed by the House and Senate which gives the CCJB a little more power. She said it indicates that the CCJB could have the potential to review all criminal justice related grants in general, and although the Governor has to sign the bill, she sees no reason why he would oppose it. Ms. White suggested that it would be helpful to ask the CCJB members how they might use the Criminal Justice Analyst position within the County and City as staff support. Ms. Saphira Baker, with the Commission on Children and Families, stated that it might be worth considering for the City to fund the Criminal Justice Planner position in lieu of the Crime Analyst position. The County has a much stronger planning capacity as far as criminal justice is concerned, so the City may have funded the planner in its Police Department for a host of other reasons dealing with data analysis. Ms. Thomas asked that the amount of $13,848 for the Criminal Justice Planner position be pulled until a report can be given to the Board. ____________ Engineering and Public Works "" Mr. Foley then called attention to the Engineering and Public Works section of the budget. This department makes up about 2.3 percent of the total budget and amounts to $2,676,293. The Public Works Department takes up 52 percent of the Engineering and Public Works budget; Engineering is at 46 percent; and Water Resources involves four percent. He noted that currently there are 71 erosion control projects handled per month, which is a 25 percent increase over last year. Mr. Martin noted that the Offender Aid and Restoration section of the budget was not discussed. Ms. Pat Smith said she does not see any reason to speak. Mr. Foley continued with his presentation of the Engineering and Public Works section of the budget. He announced that Bill Mawyer, the Director of this Department, is present if there are any questions. Mr. Foley said there are 407 site and subdivision projects managed, which is a 46 percent increase over last year, and currently there are over $51.1 million in capital projects to manage. There are 150 stormwater facilities inspected annually as part of the current program, and 203 tons of trash were collected during six bulky waste drop off days in 1999. He pointed that this was a decrease from 218 tons March 13, 2000 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 14) over five dates in 1998. Critical issues involve administration and enforcement of the new Water Resources Ordinance which includes implementation of Federal and State stormwater regulations, as well as increased stormwater facility inspections of 70 additional facilities per year and increased site inspections for erosion control. He pointed out that there has been a much greater focus in this area because of regulations and County changes in terms of its new ordinances. There is a need for a better understanding of County groundwater resources through a Hydrogeologic Study to forestall the extending of rural public water and sewer. Other critical issues include keeping capital projects on schedule and within the budget and reducing the high rate of turnover in a part-time custodial position which has been vacant eight times in two years. He added that recommendations include funding one FTE Engineering Inspector and Plan Reviewer for Water Resources at $63,030 which includes related costs besides personnel such as a vehicle. He said other critical issues involve funding with available year-end carry-over funds a Hydrogeologic Study at $50,000 and replacement of the County mail machine at $20,000. He noted that the Hydrogeologic Study is one of a series of studies that will need to be done over a five year period and will be considered on an ongoing basis. Mr. Bowerman asked for an explanation of the County mail machine. Mr. Mawyer answered that it sorts the mail, puts postage on it and records how much a department is charged for its mail. Ms. Thomas noted that the County’s mail machine handles 4,500,000 pieces of mail a year, but it was built to handle 2,000,000. Mr. Foley stated that this machine has had trouble for a couple of years. He added that some of the unfunded priorities are additional engineering inspectors for the CIP at $66,105 and for Erosion Control at $60,163, as well as the part-time to full-time transition of the custodian at $14,649. The staff intends to bring some more discussion to this Board in April about stormwater management and how it is to be handled in the future. Things are on hold until this topic can be discussed further. Mr. Bowerman referred to the problem of keeping the part-time custodian’s position filled. Mr. Mawyer responded that now he has had to put the cleaning of court square on contract. This works, but it is not as cost effective. Ms. Thomas asked if the custodian’s position would get benefits if it is a full-time position instead of a half time position. Mr. Tucker replied affirmatively. Ms. Thomas said the benefits should be a good incentive. Mr. Bowerman asked that the transition of the part-time custodial position to full-time be added to the list for further discussion. Ms. Thomas stated that $20,000 sounds as though it is a lot of money for a mail machine, but the current one seems to be inefficient. She asked if there is any other mail machine that might not be as expensive but would still be reliable. Mr. Mawyer said he is unsure about prices of other machines. Mr. Tucker commented that there are companies where the mail can be sent for this service, but he is unsure of the cost. Mr. Mawyer said it would cost two or three cents more per letter to use another company. Mr. Bowerman noted that it is not expensive if the cost of the machine is amortized over the number of years of the life of the machine. Ms. Thomas said the life of the machine is 17 years, and she asked that the mail machine be added to the list for further discussion. Mr. Tucker indicated that the mail machine has already been proposed for funding in the budget. Mr. Perkins inquired about the cost of leasing a mail machine. Mr. Foley said, over time, an analysis will be done of how to best address the replacing of the mail machine. Ms. Thomas pointed out that usually when there is a lot of staff turnover, it indicates that there are some problems. She said sometimes these types of problems can be fixed by addressing them with the budget, but sometimes there are other reasons. Ms. White indicated that consideration would be given to determining the reasons for the staff turnover. Ms. Thomas stated that she would like to put one of the additional Engineering Inspector positions on the list for further discussion, although she is unsure which position would have a higher priority. Mr. Mawyer responded that there will be a lot of capital projects in the near future with the building of the new elementary school and the Burley renovation, etc., which are all set to come on line at once. The Erosion Control Program needs help also, but this program has been given an inspector for the last two years. He stated that for these reasons he puts the CIP inspector position at a higher priority. He explained that inspectors in his office can be used for different tasks. For instance, if capital projects have a slow time, these inspectors can work on erosion control. There is some cross training among all of the inspectors. Mr. Martin announced that the CIP inspector position will be added to the list for further discussion at $66,105. ____________ Human Development (including CSA, Bright Stars and Family Support) "" Ms. White then referred to the Human Development section of the budget which totals $9,387,869 and is eight percent of the total budget. The Social Services Department makes up the bulk of the Human Development functions at 77 percent. The Health Department makes up eight percent of the Human Development budget, Region Ten is at four percent and other Human Development agencies are at 11 percent. She called attention to Social Services which manages over a $6.0 million budget and 67 staff members not including Bright Stars and the Family Support Program. This department has a growing number of employees to manage, and it also includes a large number of additional clients, as well as a lot of different client and vendor checks and administrative procedures. She stated that checks increased 90 percent from FY97 and total almost $5.0 million. She explained that as far as its current case loads, probably the most important area relates to foster cases which are over 130 cases and have an impact on March 13, 2000 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 15) the CSA. There is approximately $4.1 million projected to be spent on CSA this year which requires about a $1.9 million local share. She pointed out that some of the Social Services critical issues involve a continued increase in Adult Protective Services complaints and Companion Services requests. She stated that with the growing elderly population there are a lot of complaints and requests relating to companion services. She said currently the state has been examining the case loads for Adult Protective Services, and these standards call for an additional 1.25 social workers. She emphasized that a majority of the funding will come through the State Department of Social Services. The current general government match requirement for CSA is $1.4 million, and the current year’s budget for this item is $915,000. This is being built up each year in an effort to increase the CSA local match. Mr. Martin referred to the current budget for CSA at $915,000, and he asked if this amount includes the additions made throughout the year. Ms. White responded that this amount is what is budgeted annually. Mr. Martin next asked about the government match requirement for CSA. Ms. White replied that it is $1.4 million, so each year $500,000 or $600,000 has to be added. Ms. Thomas wondered why the whole amount is not included in the budget, if it is required. Ms. White answered that eventually the whole amount is funded, but it has been hard to budget an additional half million dollars of current operations each year, and the staff has hesitated to do that. She said when this situation started, approximately $400,000 or $500,000 was budgeted. She explained that every year the annual allocation is being increased by about $200,000 with the idea that this is what the County can afford out of the current operations. She stated, though, that it eventually has to be paid, so this year the staff will be coming back to the Board with an additional supplementary request for probably another $400,000. Ms. Thomas asked why not budget the whole amount in the beginning, since it has to be done. She would like to add the total funding for CSA to the list of things to be discussed further. Ms. White then mentioned that another critical issue with Social Services is to begin to consider all the state and federal revenues that can be received. The cost allocation plan is being considered to help examine state and federal revenues to make sure they are being maximized. She added that there is a continued increase in administrative financial work due to the 25 new staff persons added since FY96 and increased case loads. There is increasing complexity in some of the child welfare cases and short time lines for making decisions. She added that there is a need for mental health/substance abuse screening and clinical services for the “hard to serve” TANF population. Mr. Dorrier wondered if the closing of Charter Hospital will affect the County Social Services Department with such things as substance abuse screenings, etc. He noticed that the state allocated quite a bit of money to mental health issues, and he inquired if the County can get some of this money. This would be a good opportunity for the County to be pro active to try to get more funds from the state. Ms. White answered that Region Ten is trying to capture as much of the mental health monies as possible that the state is allocating, and there are additional dollars that will come through Region Ten. She also stated that she believes the closing of Charter Hospital has had an impact on child placement. Ms. Kathy Ralston, Director of Social Services, disagreed. The Social Services Department rarely deals with Charter Hospital. Mr. Dorrier noted that the citizens who use Charter Hospital will now have no place else to go. Ms. Ralston agreed that there are very few treatment options available for substance abuse. Ms. White continued her presentation by referring to the 25 percent increase in Medicaid referrals over FY99 which is another critical issue. She said other issues involve the continued increase in the foster care/adoption case load and the uncertain future of the Differential Response System for CPS cases. She noted that Albemarle County has been approved to continue with this program which is due in part to Delegate Van Yahres who helped move the program through the General Assembly. There are increasing day care case loads and the uncertainty of increased funding. There is a projected increase of the transitional employment services, particularly day care, since many clients are approaching the two year limit on TANF. Ms. White said based on some of these critical issues, the recommendation is to fund a 1.25 Adult Services/Companion Social Workers which will help address some of the increase in Adult Protective Services complaints. A total cost is shown after all of the bullets in the budget information as well as a net County cost. This is because the state provides approximately 80 percent of the funding for these positions. She said another recommendation for funding is an additional general government local match for CSA based on current year projections. She reiterated that this was a $400,000 request, but $200,000 is being recommended. She pointed out that 2.5 clerical workers are being recommended to help with the increasing load of financial and clerical responsibilities, since there has not been an increase in the clerical staff to keep up with a lot of the additional work. Another recommendation is to fund a consultant for the Cost Allocation Plan (CAP). She mentioned that there is a Family Support Program in the schools that is completely funded with Federal grant monies. There are some other Federal revenues which can be captured by having a consultant consider the CAP, and the benefits of hiring someone seem very good. It is hoped the County can get these revenues itself rather than going through the state. She remarked that another recommendation is to use the current budget allocation to purchase clinical consultations which means that Social Services is being asked to fund this item within its budget. She said $8,000 is being recommended to fund Home Care which is a request from the Jefferson Area Board for Aging within the Department of Social Services. She commented that this is being recommended not only so this Department can coordinate the social services and make sure everybody is being served if the need is there, but also for the possibility of acquiring some other monies that may match this amount of money and increase the funding the County has available. Ms. White next mentioned the four Bright Stars Programs where the local funding increases only for salary and benefit increases for staff members. She remarked that State funding may increase, and there may be the possibility of a fifth program, but this would require some additional local support from March 13, 2000 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 16) both the General Government and the School Division. She noted that the recommendation is to fund the requested increase in local funds. Ms. White then talked about the Family Support Program’s critical issues relating to salary and benefits for 15.4 staff members . She said that almost all of the $800,000 program is funded entirely with federal funds. She noted that this situation is an example of trying to bring more funds to the County with the consultant’s help. The Health Department and Region Ten are the other two biggest agencies. There is an increasing share of local dollars going into the Health Department, and although it is still very much a state agency, the state is only paying about a third of its budget currently, with the localities paying two-thirds of it. She commented that there is also the problem of determining which services are mandated and which services are optional. She pointed out that currently the Growing Healthy Families and the Dental Clinic are almost 100 percent locally funded. She stated that Region Ten’s chronically low wages has led to high staff turnover, and a consultant has recommended that in order to maintain the staff, there needs to be an approximate 6.25 percent increase. There is funding in Region Ten for two Therapeutic Community counselors which were previously included in the Jail budget. She emphasized that the funding recommendation is to give a four percent increase for both agencies recognizing that they need slightly more funding than the other agencies which were recommended for a three percent increase. She stated that when Region Ten’s budget is examined, it looks as though it has increased significantly. However, it has increased because of the two positions that are being funded for the Jail, and monies have come out of the Jail budget and gone to Region Ten. Ms. White next discussed the critical issues for the Human Development Agencies which include approximately $1.0 million in funding to 20 separate human service agencies. There has been a unified budget review this year under the supervision of the Commission on Children and Families which includes the City, County and the United Way in those funding decisions. The Commission also administers $202,444 in the Juvenile Crime Control funds which fund seven Juvenile Justice programs. She remarked that another critical issue is the growing number of elderly residents in the County which is the County’s fastest growing age group. She emphasized that there is also the issue of trying to find monies to expand some prevention programs while still being able to provide for some of the crisis management services to children and families. Another critical issue relates to the need to develop centralized data collection for the human services agencies. She noted that work has been going on with the Commission on Children and Families to begin to link program outcomes to community priorities. A process has begun of developing a new budget application which is in cooperation with the City and United Way to directly consider community and desirable outcomes from these agencies and linking them into their budget applications as opposed to just presenting them with a certain increase. She commented that the funding recommendations for the agencies overall is a three percent operational increase. Additional funds have been directed toward the Commission on Children and Families to fund a part-time planner position to help with some of the work; an expanded Director Position from 30 to 40 hours; and there are some additional funds in the Commission’s budget to replace some lost money from a DCJS Grant. Ms. White said in the JABA budget there is an increase in the cost of meals for congregate and home delivered meals as well as funding for a new agency called Piedmont CASA which is a program that works with volunteers and children within the court system who are abused or neglected. Three new Child Care Scholarships were recommended for funding in the United Way, and the Music Resource Center was also recommended for funding. She called attention to the fact that last year the Music Resource Center was funded at $1,000, but this year funding has increased to $5,000. She pointed out that the other Human Services Agencies are shown in the Board’s information, and she would be happy to answer questions concerning them. Ms. Thomas noted that the JABA representatives had made a presentation to the Supervisors about their programs for the elderly. Mr. Dorrier mentioned that he has been getting a lot of calls from the people in Esmont and Scottsville about JABA’s request for the medical services program for the elderly. He understood the funding for this particular program was not expensive. Ms. White agreed that the funding is not expensive, and the recommendation of the Budget Review Committee was not based on the fact that it is not a good program nor that the services are not needed. The issue relates to the fact that the City and County are hesitant to get into health care issues with the elderly. She stated that it was felt some of this was in the purview of the medical institutions and with such an increasing need, it was not the local government’s responsibility to begin to address it. She added that the question is whether this program will expand once the health care issues of the elderly are addressed. She said it was also thought that if the County did not get involved, there would be more incentive for the private institutions to provide some of these services such as Martha Jefferson Hospital, the University of Virginia or even the Health Department. (Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Davis left at 3:53 p.m.) Mr. Dorrier said the problem is that some of the agencies don’t have the necessary funds to help with the situation, and there is such an increase in the elderly population. He suggested that a task force be appointed to address the total needs of the whole funding situation and make a recommendation. He asked that this item be added to the list for further discussion. Ms. Thomas mentioned that real estate taxes should not be used to pay for medical services. March 13, 2000 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 17) However, she feels this is a good program that is doing some immediate things, and she will agree to add it to the list for further discussion. ____________ Parks and Recreation (including Tourism) "" Ms. White summarized the Parks, Recreation and Culture portion of the budget, which totals $4,238,739, and it is 3.6 percent of the total County budget. She pointed out that the Libraries section makes up the largest portion of this budget at 45 percent. Parks and Recreation is next at 34 percent, and the Transfer Tourism fund is at 20 percent. There are seven County parks comprising over 2,000 acres including two City/County Parks and three Community Centers. There are over 50,000 visitors to County swimming beaches a year, and there are 7,000 participants in outdoor field sports. She added that the total library circulation in FY99 was 1.7 million, and there are 1,500 visitors to the Monticello Avenue Computer Lab each month. She noted that the major critical issue with the Parks and Recreation budget relates to the disparity in the wages being paid by the City and County. She pointed out a chart included in the budget information that shows the differentials between positions in the County and the same positions in the City. She mentioned that other critical issues involve funding expensive equipment replacement needs that are not every year expenses. They may happen every few years, and it is difficult to fund them out of the operational budget. The Parks Department is trying hard to improve the maintenance of the existing athletic fields and is struggling to fund the annual increases in the Towe Park and the Therapeutic Program contract costs. She remarked that there is a need for a part-time gate opener/closer at Ragged Mountain. She went on to say the funding recommendation is to fund a 50 percent phase in of the increases in wage rates for temporary part-time positions. She added that half of the funding will be put into the budget this year and half will be done next year. She stated that with this plan, Mr. Mullaney will be able to adjust the most critical salary situations. The part-time gate opener at Ragged Mountain is being recommended for funding, as well as a replacement slope mower. Critical issues for the Library section of the budget involve implementation of a compensation plan based on consultant recommendations. She noted that the Library staff is on the City’s pay plan, but the consultant was hired to examine the compensation for the library staff and make a recommendation for funding. The popularity of the Monticello Avenue Computer Lab and the desire for additional hours of service is another critical issue, as well as the high circulation to staff ratios at the Scottsville and Crozet branches. She added that due to the popularity of the Sunday hours at the Central Library, similar Sunday hours are being requested for the Northside Library. The funding recommendations relate to funding a three percent operational increase within which the County could fund its share of the Library’s pay plan implementation. She said additional weekly hours at the Monticello Avenue Computer Lab are also recommended for funding. However, additional operating costs, the additional clerical hours at the Scottsville and Crozet branches, and the Sunday hours at Northside Library are not being recommended for funding. Mr. Dorrier referred to the people who came to a previous Board of Supervisors meeting and made a strong proposal for a branch library in Earlysville. He wondered if there was any way for the County to encourage citizens’ help with these libraries. Ms. White responded that there are some real issues involved, and the Library Board should examine these issues. She mentioned some of the issues such as how the County funds libraries and whether it should begin to fund small branches. She said another issue is whether or not to encourage people to come to a central facility. There is also the issue of determining how much can be done with technology in a place where people can access material. She emphasized that these are all things the Library Board needs to examine as far as how it wants to structure its service. Mr. Dorrier stated that the Library Board is a regional Board, so it is hard to know what individual jurisdictions need. Mr. Perkins pointed out that Albemarle County’s portion of the Library Board can make decisions for Albemarle County. Ms. Thomas remarked that she would like to add the Sunday afternoon hours at Northside Library on the list for further discussion. If the people in Earlysville want more library services oftentimes families can go to the library on Sunday afternoons. She stated that Earlysville is a rural area, and the number of services to be expanded to rural areas is a very real planning issue. She added that she is not sure how the Library Board members feel about this situation, but they need to know that the County officials want to make a distinction between the services provided in the rural areas and the services provided in the urban areas. She said Sunday afternoon at the Northside Library would appear to be a compromise where people can come in from Earlysville and other areas and make use of a facility that is already there. Mr. Martin concurred with Ms. Thomas. He said people want areas designated as rural areas, but they want the amenities of urban areas, and it can’t be both ways. He feels libraries should be in growth areas and not in the rural areas. However, the Sunday hours at Northside is a good suggestion. Mr. Perkins wondered if there was any revenue generating capacity to pay for the extra time the Library would be open. He agreed with Ms. White that the Library Board needs to make decisions as far as the types of facilities it wants to build. He said once there is a certain population that justifies a library, it doesn’t matter whether it is in a rural section or in a growth area. He noted that libraries encourage growth, and Earlysville is probably not as rural as Scottsville. Mr. Dorrier pointed out that the people in the Earlysville area consider Earlysville to be a center point, and although it might not be considered a growth area, an amenity such as a library would be desirable. Mr. Perkins stated that the issue is whether to build one big library that people have to drive to or should the libraries be spread around the County where they would be more community friendly so people don’t have so far to drive. He pointed out that people have to drive on Route 29 and fight the traffic to get March 13, 2000 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 18) their children to story hour on Saturday morning. Ms. Thomas responded that if people feel this way about such things, then this should be taken into consideration when they choose where they want to live. Mr. Dorrier referred to the bookmobiles that used to come to the different communities. He noted that when Scottsville didn’t have a library, the bookmobile would come once a week. Ms. Thomas stated that there is still a bookmobile in operation in the County, which is 100 percent funded by the County. Ms. White concurred. Mr. Dorrier asked if the bookmobile goes to Earlysville. Mr. Tucker commented that the bookmobile goes to the different subdivisions in the County. Mr. Dorrier mentioned the problem of everybody driving to one central library. He added that he feels a bookmobile going to the different communities is very important. He said if there is a site in Earlysvlle that can be used for a library, the bookmobile could carry books there and solve two problems at once. Mr. Martin explained that the question before the Board of Supervisors is the request by the Library Board for funding for the Northside Library’s extra hours, as well as other funding needs. He stated that he and Ms. Thomas have recommended putting the increased hours at Northside Library on the list for further discussion. Mr. Perkins said he does not have a problem with including this item on the list. However, he reiterated that he wonders if there is a way to generate revenue. He suggested that perhaps this could be considered for all the libraries. Ms. Thomas mentioned the extra room at the Northside Library. The community needs meeting rooms that are not so expensive. Mr. Tucker responded that the room is rented to people, but he is unsure of the charge. Mr. Martin said Mr. Perkins’ question should be passed on to the Library Board, as well as the situation in Earlysville. Ms. White stated that the people from Earlysville have also been to the Library Board, so it is very aware of the situation. The Earlysville site entered into the discussion of where facilities are needed, but something more central was recommended. Mr. Dorrier remarked that he would like to see the additional clerical hours at Scottsville and Crozet added to the list for further discussion. Ms. White next described the critical issues involving the Tourism Programs. The Tourism Transfer is based on projected lodging tax revenues increases this year of $155,280, which is a 22.7 percent increase. She emphasized that the total Tourism Fund budget is $840,000, and she called attention to the list of the various recommendations for this year as far as how the Tourism Fund is being used. She mentioned the Visitor’s Bureau Operations at $139,938 as well as the Visitor’s Bureau Exterior M & R at $164,104. The funding started at $150,000, but it increases each year by the amount of the lodging tax increases. This funding is given to the Tourism Council which determines how it will be used for tourism related projects. She referred to the Tourism Reserve amount of $107,958, which is the remainder of what is left in the Tourism Fund after everything else is allocated. She said each year more of the Tourism Fund is being used. The capital projects are listed at $25,000, and the $350,000 commitment to the ACE Program is also shown. Mr. Martin asked Ms. White if the Paramount funding is part of the Tourism Development amount shown. Ms. White replied that there is nothing actually funded for the Paramount in this item now. She explained that it will be in with the recommendations when the capital budget is discussed. Mr. Martin asked who makes the decisions about the Paramount issue. He wondered if the Chamber of Commerce has this responsibility. (Mr. Perkins left at 4:11 p.m.) Mr. Tucker answered that the Supervisors will make the decision of how much of the $500,000 request they want to fund. The staff’s suggestion is that the County’s share should come out of the Tourism Fund. Ms. White reiterated that this item will come to the Board of Supervisors with the capital budget. Ms. Thomas asked if the Virginia Discovery Museum funding will come from the Tourism budget. Ms. White said it is possible. Ms. Thomas pointed out that the County did not fund $26 of the amount the Museum requested, and it was under the usual three percent given to other agencies. She suggested that $26 be taken from the Tourism Program and allocated to the Virginia Discovery Museum. (Mr. Perkins returned at 4:13 p.m.) Mr. Tucker said this item will be considered again, because he does not understand why the entire amount was not funded. Ms. White called attention to the slide showing the funding recommendations involving the agencies such as the Virginia Festival of the Book, the request from the Municipal Band for $15,000 for its operational budget and the Ash Lawn Highland - Summer Festival for $8,000. She said a critical issue relates to allocating a certain amount of money to Tourism, and letting the Tourism Council make the decision of how it will be used. It is hard for the staff to make recommendations on what is a good tourism project and what isn’t. She added that she thinks there will be an increasing number of groups and organizations asking for Tourism dollars, and sometimes they are very small amounts. This is the difficulty in the staff trying to assess a valid tourism project. She went on to say the funding recommendations for the March 13, 2000 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 19) Tourism Program include funding the Visitor’s Bureau, Tourism Development and Capital Projects and providing a Tourism Reserve. She remarked that an additional request was received from the Virginia Festival of the Book and the Virginia Film Festival, and the County has funded them at a level contribution. She believes the City has also done the same thing. She mentioned again the allocation of $45,000 to the Tourism Council for the purpose of funding tourism-related programs and events in the County. She noted, though, that the City allocates $40,000 to the City Council for its programs. Mr. Martin asked if the Tourism Reserve of $107,958 is basically the County’s money. Ms. White replied affirmatively. Mr. Dorrier referred to the Parks and Recreation portion of the budget. He would like to add the Lewis and Clarke Museum Complex to the list for discussion. Ms. Thomas stated that this will require some thought by everybody. She and Mr. Dorrier have already seen the feasibility study on this matter, but the other Board members have not. She suggested that the discussion on this item be postponed until all of the Board members have seen the study. ____________ Community Development "" Mr. Tucker discussed the Community Development section of the budget which totals $3,808,793 and is 3.2 percent of the total budget. He noted that it is made up of Planning and Community Development, Housing, Soil and Water Conservation, Zoning, Extension Service and other Community Development agencies. The County’s population growth has been at 2.2 percent per year over the past five years, and it is projected to grow at approximately two percent a year. He said during the 1999 calendar year, the County planners reviewed 100 special use permits and zoning reviews which is down five percent from 1998 and 493 subdivision plats and site development plans, which increased 5.3 percent from 1998. He pointed out that there were over 1,505 building permits issued in 1999 at $204.7 million which is an increase of 14.4 percent from 1998, but it is a decrease of 22.9 percent from 1997. He described the critical issues which include managing the heavy development review workload with the existing staff while trying to be time sensitive to schedules for projects as well as to provide quality of review. He pointed out that the Planning Department has logged over 900 hours of staff overtime in 1999. He said another critical issue relates to the completion and implementation of high priority projects and initiatives including the Historic Preservation Plan Implementation, Rural Areas Analysis, Neighborhood Plan Development (DISC), Community Facilities Plan Update and other planning studies. He stated that presently, 70 percent of the staff time is spent on current development review projects, as well as responding to public requests, and little time remains to address other major projects. He said implementing and funding of the ACE Program is another critical issue, as well as the implementation of the Document Management System. Mr. Tucker added that recommendations include funding two planners for Development Review and Design starting in January and the purchase of a file management system for building permits, zoning plans and files from Zoning’s current year’s budget. He commented that funding $35,000 for updating the code books from the Inspections Department current year’s budget, and purchasing a replacement vehicle for $19,000 for Inspections with available year end carry-over funds are two other recommendations. He noted that unfunded priorities involve the Planning Technician for general planning support and deferring the funding of Neighborhood Plans identified in the budget. He said an additional Senior Planner position for major projects is being deferred until the major studies underway are completed. Ms. Thomas inquired if the high resolution aerial photography project is not being recommended for funding. Mr. Tucker explained that this project is shown under the GIS section of the budget which he will discuss next. He asked if there were any comments about the Development Departments. Mr. Perkins asked if a person will need to be hired to work with the ACE Program. Mr. Tucker replied affirmatively. He stated that consideration is still being given to the best way to fund this position, and he is unsure if it should be a part-time or a full-time position. Mr. Perkins said such a position should at least be considered for half time. Mr. Tucker commented that initially the position will probably be close to full-time, but he believes the position will level off and will not necessarily have to be full-time. He said it might be possible to use existing staff in the beginning. Mr. Dorrier pointed out that the Planning Office is already short-handed, and he wondered if this position could be associated with that Department. Mr. Tucker concurred that the position will be housed in the Planning Department. The Fiscal Impact Planner has been helping with the ACE Program currently, but he may not be the right person to handle this program once it begins. However, there may be others on staff who can help in this area until the program actually begins. He stated that then it will be known if it is going to be a part-time position and someone can be hired for it. Ms. Thomas mentioned again that turnover in departments usually indicates problems. She said it is uncertain how the Planning Department will be organized in the future, and the talents that are brought in will determine such things. Mr. Tucker agreed. He added that reorganization is being considered for that Department. Ms. Thomas remarked that Planning is requesting two more planners. Mr. Tucker stated that these two planners are being recommended for funding. Ms. Thomas pointed out that these two positions will not be the same as a senior planner. She March 13, 2000 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 20) then inquired if any of the four positions to soon be considered will be a senior planner position. Mr. Cilimberg stated that three of these positions are senior planner positions and the fourth is to be determined. He noted that the senior planner for next year is one of the unfunded positions. He explained that four planners for next year were requested as an anticipation of the ACE Program, as well as some of the DISC projects coming on line. He said as some of these projects are put in place, that is when the two additional positions will need to be revisited. Ms. Thomas commented that she cannot judge how bringing in four more people will affect the budget. Mr. Tucker remarked that he would rather not do anything now, and once Mr. Cilimberg can determine with the staff exactly what is needed, the request can be brought back to this Board. He said then a reappropriation can be done. Mr. Cilimberg noted that he has been able to get a couple of part-time temporary people who have provided a lot of help for his department. This situation could be evaluated in addition to the people who will be hired. He added that a couple of these positions might work into a permanent situation. Mr. Perkins inquired about the pool of people available for this type of employment. Mr. Cilimberg responded that there was a big recruitment for the senior planner position, and instate and out-of-state candidates applied. He said interviews were just completed today. The pool was very large, and the interview teams involved were very impressed. He visited with all of the applicants, and they seemed to be very good candidates. He noted, though, that an offer was not made, and it is the next step. ____________ Next, Mr. Tucker talked about the G.I.S. Technology section of the budget. He said a critical issue involves Phase One of G.I.S. in the form of a pilot Tax Map/Parcel Digital Conversion project consisting of two tax maps completed in FY00. He reminded Board members that they later granted approval for a Countywide Tax Map/Parcel Digital Conversion project. He added that another critical area is that continued G.I.S. development requires planimetric mapping for road network, driveways and structures; topographic data production; and high resolution aerial photography. He said recommendations include funding topographic data production at $30,000 from Planning’s current year’s budget and funding the planimetric mapping at $100,000 from available year-end carry-over funds. He noted that the aerial photography is not recommended for funding at this time. Ms. Thomas wondered how fast this recommendation will provide G.I.S. throughout the County. Mr. Cilimberg answered that he has been discussing how these things will fit into the schedule of bringing G.I.S. on line. He said obviously the work on the tax map parcels, which is currently funded, is very important. The aerial photography work and the planimetric mapping will play an important part in getting the mapping as accurate as possible. He added that the topographic data production is very important, which will be done with this year’s contract. This action is moving the County in the right direction, and the aerial photography not being funded next year is not a problem. He stated that it won’t really be needed until FY 200l/02. Ms. Thomas then asked when G.I.S. will be available throughout the County for all of the maps. Mr. Cilimberg replied that the County already has G.I.S., but it is the layers of G.I.S. that have to be considered. He went on to explain that tax maps and parcel mapping for the entire County should be available during the next year and one-half. The topo mapping will probably be available during the next year, but there are other layers that need to be developed. He said getting the tax map parcels done gives the County a great opportunity to start feeding in all of the tax map data. He noted that the County has land based records available now. Mr. Tucker stated that funding the high resolution aerial photography is a one time cost. He added that if the G.I.S. program moves along fairly quickly, it could probably be handled through carry-over funds or the Fund Balance toward the end of the fiscal year, if it seems as though it is the right thing to do. Mr. Perkins mentioned that the data collected from the latest space shuttle mission is supposed to be more accurate than aerial photographs. He asked if anyone knows when this information will be available. He said a surveyor also informed him that photographs no longer have to be taken to create topo maps. Mr. Martin stated that he believes it is going to take five years to develop the data that was collected from the space shuttle. Mr. Cilimberg said he can inquire about this matter. ____________ Mr. Tucker discussed the ACE Program’s critical issues which are the final approval of the ordinance and development of guidelines for program implementation, operation and requirements. The funding recommendations are to provide $1.0 million in one time funds for the program in FY01, consisting of $650,000 from the fund balance and carry-over funds and $350,000 from the Tourism funds. He noted that $1.0 million is also being earmarked for FY02, contingent upon funding availability. ____________ As far as Community Development Agencies are concerned, the critical issues relate to providing ongoing local support for Extension Agent salaries, partially funded by the State, as well as operational cost of the Extension Service. He said other critical issues involve reduced federal funding for Soil and Water rent; extending the bus service to Wal-Mart along Route 29 North and for increased service along Route 5; supporting Teen Pregnancy Report’s recommendation for full funding of the Camp Horizon teen pregnancy prevention program at MACAA; and providing ongoing support for PHA’s regional loan funds and fair March 13, 2000 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 21) housing initiatives. He reported that recommendations are for a three percent operational increase to agency budgets plus additional funds to be used to fund Extension Agent state salary increases and increased rental expense at $1,070; the Soil and Water Conservation Service rental expenses at $2,000; the Camp Horizon Program at MACAA at $31,225; and the Regional Fair Housing Program at PHA at $5,000. The unfunded priorities include the extended CTS bus service to Wal-Mart at $47,930 and the expanded Route 5 bus service at $36,515. The County Housing Initiative funding increase at $50,000 is also not being recommended for funding at this time. Ms. Thomas asked that the two bus routes be put on the list for further discussion. She said more information is needed regarding this matter. There was much success with the addition of the Pantops route, and she wondered if this type of response will be received for the Wal-Mart route. She noted that the County is going to have to do some significant things along this line. There are not many riders on some of the CTS buses, but a lot of these buses make loops to areas in the County, where they pick up quite a few riders. This changes her view about extending the bus service. Mr. Dorrier commented that a number of the CTS buses do not carry many people on them, and he has always wondered why such large buses are used. He would prefer to use small buses that can be filled. He called attention to the amount of $47,930 for the extended bus service to Wal-Mart, and he asked how many trips does this involve. Mr. Perkins stated that information is needed about the kind of ridership that can be expected. Mr. Tucker said this information was available earlier. Ms. White said information on Wal-Mart’s ridership has been projected. Mr. Cilimberg said Wal-Mart is an extension of an existing service, which goes to Fashion Square Mall, Albemarle Square and Rio Hills. He reported that this route has the highest ridership of all the CTS routes. Mr. Martin suggested that the routes be added to the list for discussion when more information is available. Ms. Thomas mentioned the route that was extended to the Colonnades. She said when she inquired as to how this route was doing, the information was not available. Mr. Tucker gave the Board some additional information on full year funding of certain budget items which included the eight firefighters; two planners; a full year of CAD Maintenance and Technology Support for the ECC, the local positions for Jail; and the ACE Program. Mr. Dorrier stated that nothing has been said about the Literacy Task Force. Mr. Tucker answered that the school system is involved with this Task Force. He said Wednesday the Board of Supervisors will meet with the School Board and if information is available, some of these issues can be discussed. _________________ Agenda Item No. 3. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. Mr. Martin referred to a letter from Delegate Paul Harris. Mr. Tucker said he had just received the letter before today’s meeting and has not had a chance to read it. However, copies were given to all the Board members. (Note: The Clerk did not receive a copy of this letter) Mr. Martin suggested that a copy be given to Mr. Davis, and he asked that he be informed of the final response. __________________ Agenda Item No. 4. Adjourn to March 15, 2000, 1:00 p.m. At 4:37 p.m., Mr. Dorrier made a motion that the Board of Supervisors adjourn to 1:00 p.m. on March 15, 2000. Ms. Thomas seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, and Mr. Dorrier. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Ms. Humphris and Mr. Bowerman. ________________________________________ Chairman Approved by Board Date Initials