HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-03-19A I I'.N I.\ I'1\ Ii
I :¢)¢) P.M.
M.\R(]I I0. IqO',
R()().M 23~.(I)t. NIY(')ll,l(.l BL. III)IN(~
.~%l(lil~, ~e%~ion: I'Y 1J.?07:(.~8 ('(.)~,l,lI.Ylf)l)t'i:!.lht~
Call to Order.
BUDGET WORK SESSION:
School Division, GIS, Personnel Issues
~:00 School Division - Dr. Kevin Castner, Ms. Karen Powell
2:00 Geographic Information System
. Current and Future Issues/Demonstration
3:00 FY 1997/98 Capital Budget
. Long Term Financial Projections
3:30 Continuation of General Government Critical Issues, if needed.
Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD.
Adjourn.
BUDGET PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BY KAREN L. POWELL, SCHOOL BOARD CHAIRMAN
March 19~ 1997
I appreciate the Board of Supervisors giving me the opportunity to present the School
Board's Proposed Budget. I'm going to spend a few moments talking about the philosophy
behind the budget request.
When Dr. Castner became our Superintendent, the School Board began to use
"maintenance of effort" as a framework for budget development. In other words, while
restructuring of existing resources should be examined and may be possible, the Board has not
supported decreasing its. level and quality of services in the Albemarle County School
Division. Last October, the Board directed the Superintendent to develop a maintenance of
effort budget, to restructure existing resources to specifically provide additional support to
schools having high concentrations of academically at-risk students, and to identify needs that
could not be included. Because the Superintendent's budget clearly reflected this direction,
and after considerable review, the School Board felt comfortable in submitting the proposal
to the Board of Supervisors for consideration.
I know that there have been differing opinions in the community about the School
Board submitting a budget request which is more than projected revenue. Therefore, I would
like to clarify the Board's position. As public officials, we believe that during this phase of the
budget process, our responsibility is to do the best job we can to articulate the needs of the
school division for the public and the Board of Supervisors, both in terms of maintaining effort
and addressing increased needs. If after the General Assembly and the Supervisors have
adopted their budgets, and if the revenue available does not support a mai ntenance of effort,
then the Board understands its responsibility to adopt a budget that matches revenue.
As you know, growth continues to make it difficult, if not impossible, for the school
division to maintain effort without increasing cost. During the current year, enrollment
increased by 218 students. For FY 1997-98, enrollment is projected to increase by 282
students. /n FY 1998-99, enrollment is projected to increase by 305 students. This is not a
new trend. Since 1992, enrollment has increased by over 900 students. During this time, the
School Board has passed budgets that did not maintain effort. The necessary additional
teachers and school buses to support growth have been provided, but other areas have been
lacking or reduced. We are behind in essential areas [iketextbook purchases. Central office
support staff was significantly reduced several years ago. School and department budgets have
not been increased in five years. Meanwhile, costs and the community's needs and
expectations for services and programs have continued to rise.
While the budget before you requires additional funding, it also restructu~'es existing
resources to address improvements. I would call special attention to a revised staffing formula
designed to provide additional resources for academically at-risk students and the Academic
Page 2
Leadership Compensation Model to utilize funds now supporting the Career Ladder to provide
a more equitable and accountable structure for extended responsibilities. These changes were
not accomplished without a great deal of work, and yes, pain; but I think they are indicative
of the School Board's commitment to utilizing resources more efficiently.
I also want to call ),our attention to the accountability structures that the school division
has implemented over the last two years. These structures include a yearly Progress Report,
which shows the entire school division's performance and the performance of individual
schools in a variety of areas, a yearly parent survey, and a parallel evaluation structure for the
School Board and the Superintendent which is directly linked to the school division goals and
the School Board's priorities. As a School Board, we believe it imperative to have these kinds
of structures in place so that citizens can clearly see the performance they are getting for their
investment in education.
During its budget deliberations, the Board struggled with the idea of passing a budget
that reflects the actual needs of the school division. In the end, the Board decided that the
most prudent course was to submit a maintenance of effort budget, however, critical areas that
remain unfunded include: textbooks, additional services for at-risk students, health clinicians,
support for technology, additional services for gifted education, fine arts, staff recruitment,
furniture replacement, and building improvements.
We have arrived ara critical point. Our continued improvement as a school division
s becoming increasingly difficult as we struggle to maintain our effort in the face of continuing
growth and changing state requirements, l would note that through the revised Virginia
Standards of Learning and the new state assessment program, the bar has been raised for all
students. Students will need to pass rigorous tests based on the Standards of Leaming in order
to graduate. Additionally, proposed changes to the Standards of Accreditation currently being
considered by the State Board of Education could have significant fiscal impact. For example,
the revised standards could require the school division to offer additional courses at the high
school level. Such a change would have serious cost implications, especially as we prepare
to open a new high school. In light of both increased accountability and additional mandates,
this is not a time to take a step'backwards in terms of our effort in support of education.
The School Board ~s proud of our school division's accomplishments and is deeply
appreciative of the longstanding support of education that has been demonstrated by the Board
of Supervisors and by Mr. Tucker and his staff.~ We look forward to continuing to work with
you to provide the county with an outstanding educational.system.
I would be pleased to answer any questions you might have about the School Board's
buciget. Dr. Castner and a number of staff members are also here to answer questions. Again,
thank you for allowing me to speak to you today.
PowerPoint Presentation for GIS Implementation
Budget Worksession - Board of Supervisors
Wednesday, March 19, 1997
(revised 3/19/97)
SLIDE
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
SLIDE OUTLINE
County Seal
GIS Development Process
Building Locator System as GIS foundation
establish GIS Development Team
determine priorities of GIS applications
evaluate GIS software solutions w/n community
initiate pilot project for GIS implementation
evaluate pilot project and implement GIS
Existing Mapping Features
road network and road names
structure locations
address information
water features
political boundaries
community names
Map of County with Tax Map Grid
Map of Tax Map 78
Digital Aerial Photography
mylars for blueprint reproduction
digital files for reference on PC
base for tax map and parcel mapping
Map of Tax Map 78 with Aerial Photo
Existing Mapping Capabilities
magisterial districts
fire/rescue response areas
mountain protection areas
comprehensive pain land use designations
community facilities
9
10
Il
I2
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
Map of Magisterial Districts
Map of Fire/Rescue Response Areas
Map of Mountain Protection Areas
Map of Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designations
Storage and Modification of Digital Mapping
permanent storage
on demand reproduction
reproduce at any scale
automated modification
Current Parcel Mapping Process
begin with base tax map (1937 map 1
scale subdivision
red line tax map blueprint
ink original mx map (Real Estate vet
ink original tax map (Planning versi(
reduce tax map for reproduction
Automated Parcel Mapping Process
link to CAMA database
parcel split (subdivision)
parcel join (combine)
Map of Parcel to be Subdivided
Map of Subdivided Parcel
Map of Parcel to be Combined
Map of Combined Parcel
,ase)
fion)
n)
Automated Parcel Mapping Benefits
accurate base map for assessment fm ,tions
concise record of parcel history
elimination of redundancy
ability to manage increased demands as County grows
increased efficiency in decision making
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Report Generation and Thematic Mapping
current owner notification process
automated owner notification process
zomng query
assessment query
GIS m complement Fiscal Impact Model
Map of Selected Parcel
Map of Query Criteria
Map of Parcels Meeting Query Criteria
Spreadsheet with Address Labels
Map Prior to Zoning Query
Map After Zoning Query
Map Prior to Assessment Query
Map After Assessment Query
Census Geography Queries
spatial demographic analysis (age, race, income, etc.)
redistricting voter precincts/magisterial districts
identification of senior citizen population for services
Map Prior to Census Query
Map After Census Query
Summary
phased GIS implementation plan
use of Bnilding Locator System as GIS foundation
working with other GIS users in the community
data/map storage and modification capabilities
increased efficiencies in data/mal~ generation techniques
increased efficiencies in data/map retrieval for decision making
Albemarle County,
V' i'a m
Five-Year
Financial Forecast
Fiscal Years
1998-2002
Caplta~ pro~eCtS
F'~ ~99019~ ' ~995196
Updated
March, 1997
FIVE-YEAR REVENUE PROJECTION UPDATE - MARCH, 1997
The Five-Year Financial Forecast presented to the Board of Supervisors in September 1996 marked the first stop in
meeting one of the stated goals in the County's Financial Management Policies which is to "develop and ammally update a
long range (3-5 year) financial forecasting system, which will include projections of revenues, expenditures, as well as
future costs and financing of capital improvements and other projects that are included in the capital budget".
Recognizing that five year estimates, particnlarly in years four and five, are subject to fluctuations in the economy and
changing policies and needs, it was the intention that the report would be updated on an annual basis. However. the
following five year forecast s~unary was updated in March 1997 to reflect projected revenues and expenditures in the
proposed FY1997-98 budget and other demographic and policy changes since September that will have an impact on the
final four years of the forecast.
The revised long-range financial forecast for Albemarle County projects that desired expenditures will exceed projected
revenues for the next four years, FY 98-99 through FY 01/02, the highest negative imbalance being in FY98/99 at
approximately $3.7 million dollars or 2.9% of total revenues. The primary cause for this imbalance continues to be the
fixed costs and capital facility related operating costs of the school division, the declining state school revenues and the
downward trend in mai estate reassessmant increases. Major changes since the September projection are the following:
· Revised revenues, which reflect a lower projected increase in real estate taxes (four year average of 3.7% down from
4.9%);
An increased average annual contribution of $500,000 to the debt service reserve fund, which was underestimated in
the September projection;
· Revised student enrollment projections that changed the cost of education factor over the four year period. (The
FY99 factor increased from 4.5% to 5.5%, or approximately $750,000);
· Textbook and bus replacement fund contributions in FY99 that were not funded in the FY98 proposed budget as
anticipated;
· An increase in general government's population growth factor from a projected 1% growth rate to 1.5%; and
* Lower operational costs associated with capital projects based on the revised CIP.
The five-year forecast continues m be based on several critical assumptions in the four major areas of: economic
characteristics, tax rates and revenues, expenditures and demographic characteristics.
Economic Characteristics
The rate of inflation is based on the National Annual Average CPIU figure, which represents the Consumer
Price Index for all urban residents The CPI index used in the projections is a combined average of the estimates
of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
· The average rate of inflation for FY 97 - FY02 is projected to be 2.97%, which is only slightly lower than the
five year historical average CPI for FY 91- FY96 of 3.34%.
Tax RatesandRevenues
· Tax rates and tax structures are not expected to change.
The Department of Finance projects General Fund revenues based on a comhination of historical trend analysis
and deterministic factors that show a revised average 5.04% increase over the next four years .compared to an
average annual rate of 6.6% for the prior five year period. Revenues for FY99 - FY02 were revised in March to
reflect the additional $2.4 million in proposed FY98 revenues, which now serves as the base year. The
additional $2.4 million reflects approximately $515,000 in E-911 revenues, $585,600 tn new transient tax
revenues, $190,000 in VJCCCA funds, $600,000 in social service revenues, and $680_000 in other local
revenues and state reimbursements. (The majority of tbese revenues are offset by corresponding expenditures.)
The School Division's Finance Office projects revenues based on the County's estimated composite index, rather
than relyurg upon a historical trend analysis Projected revenues for the next five yeats were estimated to
increase by only 1.9%, compared to the past five-year State revenue average annual increase of 4.5%. That
projection has not changed except to adjust for the additional $220,000 in state revenue received in FY98, with
Five-Year Financial Forecast
March, 1997
inflation added to the out years FY99 - FY02. However, for the four year period FY99 - F¥02, the average
annual increase is only 1.5%
Expenditure Assumptions
Baseline General Government operating expenditures are projected to increase by a Cost of Government Index
which is a combined factor of inflation and population growth. For General Government, the average annual
factor for the past five years has been 4.8%; for the next five year period this factor is 4.4% per year.
Baseline School Operations are projected to increase by a Cost of Education factor, which is a combined factor
of i~fflation plus projected sehool enrollment growth. The average mmual increase in the cost of education from
the prior five years was 5,2%; for the next five years this factor is projected to increase at an average of 4.46.%.
Based on revised November ertrollment projections, which increased the projected FY98 enrollment by 45
students, the 5-year average has been revised from 4.21% to 4.46% with the greatest impact reflected in 17Y99
for an additional haseliae cost of $750.000. For FY99 - FY01, the revised enrollment projections added 454
students, with the largest increase over the September projection ia FY99 with 164 additional students (11,931
vs. 11,767).
Expanded fixed cost~ for general government and the school division are based on required expenditures or costs
associated with capital projects in the proposed FY97/98 - FY01/02 Capital Improvement Program. The School
Division fixed costs also include mandated annual VRS increases and expanded contributions to the Bus
Replacement and the Textbook Replacement Funds in FY99 that were notable to be fuaded in FY98.
Debt service costs are determined by existing debt retirement schedules and bonded school division projects ia
the approved FY97/98 -FY01/02 Capital Improvement Program. Projected costs for debt service in this analysis,
however, are based on an annual contribution to the debt reserve fund to eliminate annual fluctuations in the
required payment. The contributions to thedebt reserve fund were underestimated ia the September projection
and have been revised to reflect an average mmual increase of $500,000 in order to meet the actual debt service
payments through FY02.
Capital improvement expenditures for the next five years arc based on the County's financial policy guidelines of
transferring no less than 3% of current revenues to the capital program. The FY98 contn'bution or transfer was
reduced by $177.000 to reflect two tourism related projects being funded out of the new transient tax revenues.
FY99 -FY02 capital improvement contributions have not been reduced to reflect these additional tourism
revenues that might be available for future tourism related capital projects.
· Revenue Sharing projections from the Department of Finance are based on projected fair market value of all real
estate and the 10% cap. The previous September estimates have been revised dowmvard to reflect lower and
more realistic expectations in property reassessments.
Demographic Characteristics
· Population growth from FY96/97 tt~rough FY99/00 is based on an estimated 1.5% annual population growth,
which has been revised from the 1.02% average annual increase in the initial September projections. The prior
projection was based on the Center for Public Service's estimate of 75,500 for FY95/96 and the Virginia
Employment Commission's projected population of 79,081 for FY2000/01, which produced an average annual
~ncrease of 1.02%. However, since the historical trend in Albemarle's population growth over the past five years
has been approximately 2.06%, a more realistic projection of 1.5% is being used in the revised projections.
School enrollment data has also been revised to reflect the School Division's November, 1996 projections which
show a 1.6% average annual increase from FY98 to FY02 and replaces the initial average increase of 1.35%.
The highest increases are in the first three yearn, with the greatest variance from the initial projection in FY99
with an increase of 164 students.
Five -Year Financial Forecast
2 Maret~ 1997
When these assumptions are applied to both revenue and expenditure gata in the forecast, they produce an annual revenue
increase of 5.04% for the next four years compared to a 6.6% rate over the past five years. The rate of expenditure
increase for the past five years has been 6.8% compared to a projected expenditure rate for the next four years of 5.3%,
assuming growth, inflation and expanded operating costs of capital facilities and projects ' ~ ' ~ ~
Economic and Growth Assumptions
FY96/97
FY97t98 FY98/99 FY99100 FY00101 FY01102
Avg.
Annual
Inc.
Inflation (1) 3.30% 2.93% 2.91% 2.89% 2.87% 2.70%
Poputation Growth Rate 1.45% 1.50% 1.50% 1.50% 1.50% 1.50%
Cost of Government 4.75% 4.43% 4.41% 4.39% 4.37% 4.20% 4.36%
School Grow th Rate 1.99% 2.49% 2.62% - 0.67% 1.67% 0.57%
~rffiafion 3.30% 2.93% 2.91% 2,89% 2.87%. 2.70%
Cost of Education 5.29% 5.42% 5.53% 3.56% 4.54% 3.27% 4A6%
pulation Growth (2) 77,000 78,155 79,327 80.517 81,725 82,951 ~
heel Enrollment (3) 11,344 11.626 11,931 12,011 12,211 12.280I
(11 Based on average of CBO and OMB estimates. FY02 based on avg 2~7% grow th over prior five years,
(21 FY97-FY00 population based on Center for Fublic Service Estimates. FY01 & FY02 based on estimates
for 2000 and 2010 given constant grow{it
(3) School Enrollment based on 11/96 projections from School Division.
The chart behiw shows the variance between revenues and expenditures for the past five years (FY 91-96), the current
budget year, the proposed budget for FY98 and the projected shortfall for the next four years (FY99 -FY02) based on an
expenditure model that assumes growth and inflation on prior year baseline expenditures, plus other known fixed costs,
i.e. new high school and other capital related costs. Adding the fixed costs assoffmted with the VRS payments,
establishing a textbook and a bus replacement fund and adding all the operating costs impacted by new capital facilities
causes a shortfall of $3.7 million in FY99, $2.9 in FY0C, $2.6 million in FY01 and $1.8 million in FY02 for a total
shortfall over thc next four years of $11 million.
Difference Between Revenues & Expenditures
(Growth/Inflation and Added Fixed Costs)
FY1990/91 - Y2001/02
$4
$2
($4)
($6)
FY9'1 FY92 FY93 FY94 FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02
Rsca[ Year
Five -Year Financial Forecast
March. 1997
Four Year Revenue Projections
FY99 - FY02
% TL % TL Annual
FY97 Pt' 97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY02 Inc. (4yr)
Real Estate Taxes 32.44% 38,482 39,366 40,750 42,245 43.880 45.505 29.53% 3.69%
Personal Property 15.89% 18,857 21,718 24,621 27,931 31,612 35,838 23.26% 13.34%
Sales Tax 6.49% 7.700 8,078 8,501 8,959 9,440 9,946 6.45% 5.34%
OtherLocalTaxes 9.70% 11,503 12.764 13,184 13,607 14,049 14.506 9.41% 3.25%
Other Local Revenues 3.09% 3,672 4,685 4,892 5,102 5,278 5,470 3.55% 3.95%
TotatLocal 68.22% 80,939 87,352 92,716 98,639 105,087 112,125 72.77% 6.44%
Intergovernmental. IGeneral Fund) 5.29% 6,271 7,221 7,368 7.621 7,828 8.010 5.20% 2.63%
intergovernmental(SchoolFund) 26.04% 30,898 32.016 32.054 32,831 33.419 33.957 22_04% 1.49%
Fund 13ahance 53'1
Total Revenues 100.00% 118.639 126,589 132,138 139,091 146,334 154,092 100.00% 5.04%
A breakddwn of projected County expemlit~es [including baseline, fixed and expanded costs) for FY 1999- FY 2002
appears on the next page.
Five -Year Financial Forecast
4 March, 1997
Breakdown of Projected County Expenditures (Including Baseline, Fixed and Expanded Costs)
FY1999- FY2002
SCENARIO II (with fixed costs an.d capitaloperating costs)
Approp
FY96197 FY97198
29.396,168 32.633,355
409,104
0.06%
29,396,168 33,042,459
5
FYa8199 FY99100 FYO0101 FY01102
33.042,459 34.514.054 36.044.183 37,634,331
104.45% 104.43% 10441% 104.24%
34,514,054 36.044.183 37.634.831 39,230 736
324,310 527.258 737,977 932,349
4.395~
5041379
3.846.291 1,795.905 t,7~3.077 1,831,367 1.790.277 2.153.303
I 12.40'~- 6.449:, 4.97% 4.93:; 4.67% 6.0D'4,
70,417,635 71,478,373 76,357,905 79,402,592 89.528,033
477,105 200,000
248,719 183,280
334.714 442.695 378.030 381,340 381.640
0.00% 105.61% 103.58% 104.59~ 103.29%
71,478,373 76.357.905 79,482,592 83,528,033 86,666,433
60.000 1.559.041 1,867,741 2,009,932 2,807,401
o o_ o o o
71,538,373 77,916,946 81,350,333 85,637.865 89,473,834
4.26oA
1,660,623
Non-Departm entel Expenditures
Debt Service 6,959,300
Capital Transfer 2,686,500
Debt ServiceJCaDital Reserve 450,000
3nard Reserve 213.252
Projected County Expenditures 1t2,301,435
Plus Self-Sustaining Funds -- 6,337,670
Total Projected County Expenditures 118,639,105
* Does not include $001.495 in one - time Iocaltransfer funds
** includes expenditure increases in cafeteria funQ on¥
6,845,880 6,845,680 6,845,880 6,845.880 6,845,880
2,323,000 2,900,000 3,200.000 3,500,000 4.000,000
600.000 1,000.000 1,500,000 2.000.000 2,600,000
0 0 0 0 0
51,700 54,003 56.397 58.885 61.383
100.000 200.000 200.000 200,000 200,000
5,5t8,393 5~557~771 5r799~495 5,899~495 6,235,474
15,438,973 16,507,654 17,601,772 18,504,260 19.942,737
180.000
(294.1t2) 1,118.691 1.944.t19 902.486 1.436,477 841.930
-t.U7'~ 7.26% 6.31% 5.13'Z 7.77~~ 6.61'~
120,0t9,805 t29,312.964 t35,523,647 142,4t5,033 149.579.556
6,690~954 6,498,602 ~,508,258 6~518,493 6,269~408
126,710,759 136,811,566 142,03t,805 148,933,526 195,649,064
6.82%
Projected Revenues & Expenditures FYit7198 FY98189 FY99/O~ FY00101 FY01102 Total
Revenues 126,589,070 132,137,911 139,090,034 146,333,570 t54,592~286 698,244,073
Expenditures 126.710.756 135~61~,566 ~42~031,605 148~933~696 165,649,064~ 709.385.720
Annual Shortfall (121,689) (3,673.655) (2,940,it71) {2,599,606) (t ,756,77E (ltl .092,847
Five-Year Financial ForeCast S March, 1997
County of Albemarle
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Sheriff Terry Hawkins
Roxarme W. White, Assistant County Executi '¢e~
March 19, 1997
Proposed Staffing Levels for FY98
In response to your letter to Mrs. HumpEris and your comments at Monday's work session, I wanted to clarify the
staffing levels for your office in the FYg8 proposed budget. As you can see on the attached sheet, staffing levels for
your office will remain at the same level in FY98 as they are in the current year and will not be negatively impacted
by Scottsville's agreement to totally fund two deputies in FY98.
The chart shows that in the current year FY96/97, the SherLff's Office has a staff of sixteen: 1 Sheriff, 1 Chief
Deputy, 2 clerical, and 12 deputies who provide services in Albemarle County as a lieutenant, bailiffs, transport
officers, and in the DARE program. Adding the two Scottsville deputies, your full staff totals eighteen employees
in the current year. The chart also shows that these same 16 Albemarle positions are provided in the FY98 budget,
as well as the 2 pos'aions for Scottsville. Therefore, the same number of FIE positions are available for your needs
in FY98 as they are in FY97.
[ have also attached a copy of the executive sumanary that was sent to the Board last luly when the additional funds
were approved to increase the two part-time deputies to full-t/me. As the letter indicated, bringing the two part-rune
deputies up to full time would provide a total of 4 FTE's at Juvenile Court (2 comp board and 2 locally funded
positions) and 2 FTE's at the General District Court (1 comp board funded and 1 locally funded). As you
remember, these staffing levels were set after discussions with both luvenile Court Judges and the General District
Court Judge and their agreement was that these sta~ng levels were appropriate and adequate for their needs. As
noted in my letter of August 16, 1996, the number of lq l~'s serving both Juvenile Court and General District Court
were not to be changed without prior notification. As the chart shows, these staffing levels can still be provided to
the two courts in FY98 m~d will not be affected by the Scottsville agreement.
I hope this will adequately explain the FY98 proposed staffing levels and clear up any misunderstanding that may
have occurred dm-lng our budget discussions. Please let me haow if you have any questions on this issue or need
any additional information.
Attachments
e~ Cd'matte County Board of Supervisors
Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
Albemarle County Executive's
401 Mctntire Rd.
Charlottesville, Virg/n/a 22902
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Additional Bailiff, Juvenile Court
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request approval of Apprepdation #96001 to transfer $45.657
from the Board's Reserve to the Sheriffs Office to fund an
additional Juvenile Court Bailiff on a temporary basis for one
year.
STAFF CONTACT(~t: -
Mr. Tucker, Ms. White
AGENDA DATE:
July 3, 1996
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
INFORMATION:
ATFACHMENTS: Yes j
REVIEWED BY: ~
/
BACKGROUND:
On April 10, 1996, the Board of Supervisors approved the FY 1996/97 Operating Budget. which provided a total of $51,500 in
funding foran additional bailiff (1 FTE) in the Juvenile Court, contingent upon demonstrated need by the Sheriff's Office, and
which extended the contract with ScottsviIle for one addrdonal year, through June 30, 1997. That same day, the Board requested
that staff report back to the Board on the Sheriff's staffing needs prior to July.
DISCUSSION:
At the Board's request, staff conducted a review of staffing needs in the Sheriff's Office, based on an analysis of the historical,
current and projected workload of the Sheriff's deputies. Based on its review of this information, staff has determined that if the
locally-funded deputy serving in Scotisville were returned to County service, that the existing n umber of state and locally-funded
deputy positions would be adequate to meet current and projected staffing needs in the areas of courtroom security,
pdsoner./patient transport, cml process, and service in the D.A.R.E. program. However, while the County deputyis assigned to
law enforcement duty in Scottsville, there exists a temporary shortage of staff to provide courtroom security.
Staff considered the following factors in reaching this conclusion. Over the past few years, the number of civil papers served
and Eansports completed have not increased significantly, although an increase in number of courtroom hours, particularly in
Ifie Juvenile Court, has increased the number of bailiffs needed to provide Courtroom security. Further, the current number of
funded FTE's in the Sheriff's Office are sufficient to meet the increased workload in the Courts, although the assignment of the
County deputy to Scotlsville has required that cml process servers be used as temporary bailiffs, when the need adses. As a
rssult, the Sheriff indicates, that a backlog of civil papers exists, and that his deputies are unable to serve all papers in a timely
Currently, there are 3.63 bailiffs assigned to the Juvenile Court, one of whom is a "floater', who provides courtroom security as
needed, in eddition to moving juveniles between the holding cells and the judge's chambers and transporting juveniles back and
forth to the detention home. Judges Shannon and Berry have indicated that an average of 3-4 bailiffs are needed daily to work
in the Juvenile Court, with the excep~n of Tuesdays, when an average of 6 bailiffs are needed. Using the tioater deputy, the
Shedff typically has been able to provide the required number of bailiffs on Mondays, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday. (When
additional bailiffs are needed, civil process servers are used as temporary baitiffs to make up the difference.) On Tuesdays,
however, the Sheriff must utilize additional staff to provide court security, pulling the 1.63 FTE bailiffs assigned to the General
District Court (which is not in session on Tuesdays), and using a part time civil process server.
The cost of providing an additfonal full-time bailiff in the Juvenile Court is $51,500. Should the Board decide to approve this
adcY~onal posi~on, it could use the $51,500 in add~onal funding that bas been set aside for this purpose in the Board's budgeted
contingency reserve for FY 96/97. However, the Shedff indicates that Jf an addifional staff person were to be aoproved, thathe
would prefer to increase [wo par~-time deputy positions to full-time at a cost of $45.657 instead of an adding another full-time
position. (One of these part-time positions serves the Juvenile Court. and one serves the General District Court. This WOUld
increase the number of assigned FTE's in Juvenile Court by .37, for a total of 4 FTE (2 comp board, 2 local}, and increase the
number eT deputies assigned to General Distdct Court by .37, for e total of 2 FTE (1 comp board, I Ioca{)~
Judge HeMn has indicated.that the need for add,one{ bailiffstaffin General District Court has ;ncreased substantially in the past
few years, particularly in the cdminal cases. This full-time General District bailiff would be available to provide security and
additional transpods to and from the Joint Security Complex, as well as assist the Juvenile Court on Tuesdays.
RECOMMENDATION;
Based on this information, staff recommends the following:
that the Board provide temporary funding to increase two part-time court security positions to full-time at a cost of
$45.657 to adequately meet court secur'r[y needs while the tripartite agreement with Scottsville is ia effect (from July 1,
1996 to June 30, 1997);
that these staffing ratios of local and comp board funded positions be maintained for both Juvenile and Domestic
Relations Court and Genera~ District Court;.
that any staffing changes or reassignments that would affect locally funded positions or service levels at either court
be reviewed by County staff prior to implementation;
that the Board re-examine this issue during the nextbudget cycle, to determine what impact the return of the deputy
from Scott~Jle w~(I have on staffing needs in the Shedff s Office and whether temporary funding for the sheriffs .deputies
should con,hue; and
that the Board approve Appropriation #96001 in the amount of $45,657 to temporarily increase two part-time deputies
to full-time for FY 1996-97.
96.120
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR 96/97 NUMBER 96001
TYPB OF APPROPRIATION
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW
X
ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ?
YES
NO X
FUND GENERAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: ~
COST OF EXPANDING PART-TIME DEPUTY TO FULL-TIME.
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1100031020110000
1100C31020210000
1100031020231000
1100031020232000
1100031020221000
11000310202?0000
1100031020370000
11C0031020530900
1100031020600854
1100031020800500
SALARIES $16,120.00
FICA ~,233.00
HEALTH INSURANCE 1,480.00
DENTAL INSURANCE 93.00
VRS 3,826.00
WORKERS COMP. ~02.00
LAUNDRY & DRY CLEANING 157.00
AUTOMOTIVE INSURANCE 406.00
VEHICLE OPERATION 2,040.00
MOTOR VEHICLES 19,900.00
1100095000999990 BOARD RESERVE
(45,657~00)
TOTAL $0.00
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
$o.oo
TOTAL $0.00
REQUESTING COST CENTER:
APPROVALS:
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
COUNTY EXECUTIVE
S I GNATURE
DATE
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Terry W. Hawkins, Albemarle County Sheriff/..~ ~---~
Rbxanne W. White, Assistant County F. xecutive~
August 6, 1996
Additional Bailiff Position
As you know, on July 3, 1996 the Board of Supervisors approved an additional $45,657 to the Sheriff's
Department to increase two part-time deputy positions to full-time [or fiscal year 1996-97. However, the Board's
approval of this request was based on the folJoving conditions or stipulations:
that funding to bdng the hours of the two part-time depufies to full.me is temporary (from July 1,
1996 to June 30, 1997) and will be discontinued at the end of this fiscal year unless othenvise
stipulated by the Board of Supervisors;
that the two deputy positions are not being authorized as permanent full-time County funded
positions, but will be paid for their increased hours up to 40- per week far the remainder of FY
1996-97;
that the two deputes, Turner and BamJ, are aware that these positions will return to part-time status
in July, 1997;
that the Board viii re-examine this issue during the next budget cycle, to determine what impact the
return of the deputy from Scottsville will have on staffing needs in the Sheriff's Office and whether
temporary funding for the sheriffs deputies should continue;
that the number of deputies regularly assigned to Juvenile Court'Mll increase by .37 FTE for a total
of 4 FTE's (2 comp board, 2 local);
that the number of deputies regularly assigned to General District Court will increase by .37 FTE
for a total of 2 FTE's (1 comp board, 1 local);
that these staffing ratios for local and comp board funded positions will be maintained for both
Juvenile and Domesfic Relations Court and General District Court;
that any staffing changes or reassignments that would affect locally funded positions or service
levels at either coud must be reviewed by County s~,ff prior to implementation;
Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions on the above conditions set out by the Board of
Supervisors.
RWW\
96.062
pc:
The Honorable Edward DeJ. Berry, Judge
The Honorable Jannene L. Shannon, Judge
The Honorable Stephen H. Heivin, Judge
Mr. Richard E. Huff, ii
Dr. Juliet C. Jennings, Director of Human Resources