Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-03-15A March 15, 2004 (Meeting Adjourned from March 10, 2004) (Page 1) An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on March 15, 2004, beginning at 1:00 p.m. in Room 235, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. This meeting was adjourned from March 10, 2004.. PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mr. Kenneth C. Boyd, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Mr. Dennis S. Rooker, Ms. Sally H. Thomas and Mr. David C. Wyant. ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W. Davis, Clerk, Ella W. Carey, Assistant County Executive, Tom Foley, Assistant County Executive, Roxanne White, Director of Office of Management and Budget, Melvin Breeden, and Budget Analyst, Laura Vinzant. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 1:00 p.m. by the Chairman, Mr. Dorrier. _______________ Agenda Item No. 2. FY 2004-2005 Financial Plan Operating and Capital Budgets - Budget Work Session. Budget Overview - Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive. Mr. Tucker made a visual presentation of the proposed budget (copy of materials used for the presentation are on file in the Clerk’s office) He said the goal for this meeting is to cover General Government issues, revenue trends, expenditure trends, agency and departmental budget baselines, the Capital Improvements Program, and the Business Plan, if time allows. He added that for the next work session to be held on March 17, staff will continue with General Government issues, then get into long- range projections, followed by review of the School budget. On March 22, staff will bring forward for continued discussion any issues from prior work sessions, and then hope to wrap up and finalize the budget for public hearing as well as the setting the tax rates. Mr. Dorrier asked if staff would be making any assumptions today on what funding to expect from the State. Mr. Tucker responded that he had heard that the House of Delegates was making a compromise budget, but no solid information had been shared with the County yet. He suggested that they discuss State revenues at the end of the meeting, and he could present scenarios on what would happen should the budget not be adopted. Mr. Tucker emphasized that because the County operates on 75 percent local funds, they can operate “for a long while” on those funds, adding that the schools do receive a larger percentage of funding from the State. He added that the Governor does have emergency provisions to send money to localities should no budget resolution be reached by the General Assembly. Mr. Tucker stated that once the land books close, the County is locked into a tax rate, and if necessary – although he finds the scenario unlikely – the County could look at a tax rate for any losses incurred during the coming fiscal year. He added that the County does have timelines it needs to follow, given the need to send out tax bills for this funding cycle. Mr. Tucker noted that if Board members find something that has not been covered, staff keeps a “running list” so that at the end of the meetings, those individual items can be voted on. Ms. Thomas commented that this budget is “unique,” because there has never in the past been a situation where there are so many items that require a decision about tax rates. She expressed concern that the Board could spend a lot of time discussing a budget that might not be adopted, and suggested that the Board use one of the two budgets available, but not both. Mr. Boyd asked what the difference would be in this budget versus the last time the County raised the tax rate by four cents. Ms. Thomas replied that it wasn’t recommended by the County Executive, so it was not in his budget, and the discussion focused largely on the CIP. Mr. Tucker commented that there still were initiatives the Board did consider, but there were also bigger issues related to the CIP. Mr. Tucker said the budget goals for this particular budget are built with a two-cent tax reduction, but personnel and operational mandates are funded, along with market-competitive merit pool raises of three percent. He noted that they have tried to limit health insurance increases for employees, with the County absorbing thirteen and one-half percent, and the employees picking up two and one-half percent to fulfill the remainder of the total increase. Mr. Rooker asked if there was any additional information available on claims. Mr. Tucker replied that would be covered during the discussion of benefits. Mr. Tucker explained that County staff tried to restore needed baseline funding as well as vehicle replacement, prioritizing critical strategic initiatives. He reported that fire station improvements and COB borrowing have yielded an increase of 22 percent in capital and debt under “General Government.” Mr. Tucker explained that there is an 8.9 percent increase in total budget, but that does not include the unfunded requests from schools of $2.1 million. Mr. Boyd asked if they were still under guidelines for capital and debt, given the large increase. Mr. Tucker responded, “Yes.” He stated that the pie chart presented on general fund revenues shows that property taxes provide 57 percent; sales, utility, lodging, meals, etc. comprise 22 percent, and state revenues provide 14 percent. Mr. Tucker explained that $8.2 million comes from real estate taxes, using a rate of 74 cents – based on a two-cent reduction in the current rate; new construction value is estimated March 15, 2004 (Meeting Adjourned from March 10, 2004) (Page 2) at $355 million. He stated that personal property tax generates $2 million, a 7.9 percent increase – which is a bit skewed and he will explain later in the meeting. Mr. Tucker presented a comparative real estate tax chart, noting that Albemarle has the lowest rate of localities that have 70,000 or more people. He provided an assessment history starting in 1983, which shows an 18.3 percent bi-annual increase in 2003, and the County is projecting that it may take a slight downturn in 2005. Mr. Rooker commented that the County has always had a positive reassessment, never a downturn. Ms. Thomas commented that the two peaks have been when the stock market is doing badly. Mr. Tucker noted that the City has tracked slightly ahead of the County in their assessments, but basically trends the same as the County. He said that state and federal revenues have been flat, and the County’s personal property income increase may not be as positive as initially projected. Mr. Tucker said that other local revenues – especially sales and meals taxes – have increases slightly. Mr. Breeden addressed the Board for information regarding state and federal revenues, which show only a $34,000 increase in those revenues, not including Personal Property Tax Relief monies. He said that the ABC taxes have provided some increase, and the Constitutional Officers funding will add $11,000. Ms. Thomas asked what he was basing these numbers on, given that the General Assembly has not resolved its budget. Mr. Breeden replied that at the time staff did these revenues, they were based on numbers that were being put out by the state on the assumption that the Governor’s budget was going to be funded. He continued with is report, stating that under Categorical Revenues – those primarily tied to an activity such as police – show a total of $379,00 primarily from the $278,000 projected increase of 599 Funds. Mr. Breeden said that federal funds have increased only very slightly, primarily for Social Services. Mr. Breeden noted that the state’s share of funding has dropped from 17.7 percent in 2001 to about 12 percent for next year. The state is not picking up any of the new expenses that are incurred – inflation or growth. He added that funding for the Commonwealth’s Attorney, Clerk of Court, etc. is dwindling, and that is the general trend in state funding. Mr. Breeden noted that there are local revenues for the Sheriff’s office which help a little, and added that Social Services have had to rely more heavily on local funding because of reduced federal and state monies. Mr. Breeden said staff is estimating the reassessment to provide a 16 1/2 percent increase, but with computer-assisted appraisals, the figures change more rapidly than when the assessments were done manually. It is not as constant as it used to be. Mr. Boyd asked if the process was ongoing. Mr. Breeden explained that the County is on a two- year cycle, and it takes approximately 18 months for staff to go through properties and determine their value. He said that with computers, they can now use trends and get more current values. In response to Mr. Boyd, Mr. Breeden explained that comparable sales are used to set values, to determine trends in increases (and decreases). Ms. Thomas commented that staff does not send out massive reassessment letters to everybody this year, and asked how the market affects what the County expects to receive next year. Mr. Breeden replied that every two years, the County sends out reassessments that will be starting in December 2004 to be effective in January 2005. Mr. Rooker said there is no reassessment that will affect the June bills, there will be a December reassessment, and they do go out all at once. He clarified that his interpretation of Mr. Breeden’s information is that market trend data is quickly available to adjust those figures. Mr. Breeden agreed, and added that the computer gives you the capability of making that change. Since the County is aiming for market value, it almost has to take that information. Mr. Boyd added that to affect income next year this only refers to the impact on the June 5, 2005 tax bills, thus only one-half year’s worth of tax bills. Mr. Rooker noted that people still have the right to challenge their assessments. Mr. Breeden explained that there is an increase in personal property taxes, but recent information from the National Automobile Dealers Association has raised concerns that the County overestimated that revenue source, and there have been huge decreases in the used car market – as much as 10 to 15 percent decrease in one year. He added that for 2004, some vehicles are declining by as much as 25 to 30 percent. It’s hard to determine the total impact of that, because how many new vehicles are in there may offset a lot of the figures. Regarding state revenues, Mr. Breeden said that ABC funds will increase by $41,000, 599 funds will increase by $277,000 and the Compensation Board has a slight increase. Unless the state cuts into already existing funds – which there is some concern over – these are basically the major increases that the County has from the state for next year that it could lose. Mr. Rooker commented that it was a total of about $320,000. Mr. Breeden said that his staff has provided information on other possible revenue sources – such as increasing Community Development Department fees, but these have already been adjusted recently. The fees have not really been compared to other localities, but they are substantially below the cost of operating those departments. Fees may be one area the County can think of in terms of some increases. He added that that does not include building inspections, as those fees are producing revenues equal to the expenses of those departments, so it is mainly the planning and zoning departments. March 15, 2004 (Meeting Adjourned from March 10, 2004) (Page 3) Mr. Breeden noted that Parks & Recreation had increased their fees in 2002, and they are considering reviewing those, especially for building rental; he added that it is not a significant source of funding, though. Following the City’s example, he said, the County could raise their wire line fees to $3, which would add $400,000 to revenue. He mentioned there is state legislation that could change the taxation in that area substantially, but probably won’t be considered until 2005; that provision replaces all local utility tax with a 4.5 percent tax to include cable, satellite TV, pagers, telephones, etc. Mr. Breeden stated that the wire line charges would be reduced to 75 cents under that new plan, explaining that line charges are collected locally; cellular service is collected at the state level and distributed back to localities based on funding requests. Mr. Davis mentioned that the legislation referred to was adopted by this General Assembly, but must be readopted by the next session in 2005 to go into effect. He said that the legislature this year laid out the scenario that authorized a study to determine how much revenue each locality would earn to have a baseline for their revenue generated by taxes. Should the legislation go through, Mr. Davis explained that these local revenues would be turned over to a third party administrator then redistributed to localities based on the July 1, 2003 ratio. He added that 911 funds would be limited to 75 cents per line, and would also be collected by the third party. In response to Mr. Rooker’s question, Mr. Davis explained that the County would get the same amount they are getting now based on July 1, 2003 rates. Mr. Breeden added that a revenue calculation will be done to determine if four and one-half percent will generate the same or more revenues than what is currently being collected. He expressed concern that the numbers of those type phones are on the decline – about 6,000 phones were lost this past year; and also expressed concern about the funds going to the state instead, as evidenced by the Governor’s use of the wireless funds last year. Ms. Thomas said that when the personal property tax went in, localities who had been charging more in turn received more from the state when the reimbursement system was started. She asked Mr. Breeden if it is plausible to receive more from the state if the rates were raised this year. Mr. Breeden responded that the concept is that the state will determine as of 2003 what percentage of the grand total each locality would get. Mr. Rooker added that the fact Albemarle never had a cable franchise fee will hurt the County. Mr. Davis commented that cable TV has been eliminated from that bill, so the County can revisit the franchise fee. Mr. Rooker noted that Adelphia is emerging from bankruptcy, adding that Albemarle County is the largest jurisdiction in the country that does not have a cable franchise fee. Mr. Breeden added that increases in costs for animal licenses and decals could provide some revenue, but not a great amount. Mr. Davis stated that Albemarle’s decal fee is currently at $25, with a maximum of $28.50 for cars weighing less than 4,000 pounds; and $30 with a maximum of $33.50 for cars weighing more than 4,000 pounds; motorcycles could go up by $6.50, but that does not generate a lot of revenue. Mr. Breeden estimated that increasing the license fees would add approximately $150,000 to revenue. Mr. Breeden mentioned that fees and services for Planning and Zoning are generating about 25 percent of the operating costs of those offices. There probably is room for some increases. He added that Parks & Recreation receive about 15 percent of their funding from fees. Mr. Breeden reviewed “one-time funds” with the Board, projecting that the fund balance as of June 30, 2004 would be $3.4 million above the $13 million target. He added that staff is recommending that $160,000 in one-time items be funded from that balance: contributions to the solid waste authority, replacement vehicles, and voting machines. Mr. Boyd asked if the Rivanna Sewer and Water Authority contribution would be going into reserve funds to be used for clean-up. Mr. Breeden replied that some of the funds would go into operating, and he would explain in detail later in the meeting. He added that after funding those three items, that leaves $2.4 million, and depending on the tax rate decision, that number would be reduced by $1 million. Typically, this money has been used as a source of revenue at the end of the year to transfer to the Capital Improvement Fund, to offset future borrowing needs or fund projects without borrowing. He added that rating agencies look favorably on having a “rainy day fund.” The operating budget currently includes $300,000 in reserves, Mr. Breeden said, that would be used for minor adjustments. Mr. Rooker asked how adequate he thought that amount was. Mr. Tucker replied that the $1.5 million is the “financial cushion” in the budget, based on current revenue and expense projections. If the Board does not reduce the tax rate, it will have $2.5 million. Mr. Rooker commented that it seems to me to be a fairly low amount. Mr. Breeden pointed out that there is the $13 million fund balance, also. Mr. Dorrier commented that the budget is a 12-month process not drawn down immediately the first month. Mr. Breeden added that the $300,000 is there to be used without affecting the bottom line. Ms. Thomas mentioned that the CSA fund emergency is an example of how the fund could be used. Ms. White addressed the Board to explain the expenditures side, looking at a 46 percent transfer to the school, and Revenue Sharing at five percent – so at least one-half of the budget cannot be used in General Government operations. She mentioned that Public Safety is the biggest category at 12 percent, and Human Development takes up eight percent; debt service includes both schools and General Government. March 15, 2004 (Meeting Adjourned from March 10, 2004) (Page 4) Ms. White presented a chart that revealed the difference between FY 2003 and FY 2005, showing a 9.9 percent increase over two years. She emphasized that the County dropped their budget last year by 1.2 percent, adding that they are trying to recover from a cutback in operations, and have only increased operations by $200,000 from FY 2003 to FY 2005. Ms. White emphasized that the operating budget is actually less than it was two years ago, and said that one of the costs they had was reinstating eight positions that had previously been frozen. She added that the County also had the impact of the 1.8 percent salary increase effective st November 1. “It was not in the budget last year, so what you’re seeing is the increase in that in next year’s budget.” Ms. White noted that there are 29 vehicles identified to be replaced that were not replaced over the last two years, which was a significant increase, and department operational budgets are also partially restored. She explained that office staff had gone through their budgets line by line. Ms. Thomas asked Ms. White if they wanted to discuss vehicle replacement now or later. Ms. White responded that there is a slide in her presentation that has that information. Ms. White reported that General Government had almost $4.3 million in new revenues: 37 percent went to salary increases and restoring frozen positions; 19 percent went to the Virginia Retirement System; 7 percent went to health and dental insurance; 13 percent went to the Regional Jail. Ms. White elaborated on the cost of salary increases - $1.6 million for 3.8 percent salary increases; $100,000 of the revenue has been set aside in salary contingency funds. She explained that a market salary survey that determined what salaries were in July 2003 helped provide a basis for the salary increases. Ms. White said that other localities average salary increase was 3.5 percent, so Albemarle added .3 percent for a total 3.8 percent raise. Albemarle is now .3 percent above market. She added that their compensation strategy is to be at 100 percent of market for both teachers and classified, using data from the WorldatWork – a national firm that surveys private industry and the public sector and breaks it up into regions – which anticipated a 3.3 percent increase. Ms. White presented a slide showing staffing trends on a per capita basis, which shows a gradual increase but leveling off in recent years. The information shows that the number of public safety employees have really increased, at least more per capita than the General Government employees. Mr. Boyd asked if a comparative study had been done with other localities. Ms. White responded that the information is difficult to obtain, although it is easy to get per capita spending. There is no real document out there that looks at staffing per capita. Mr. Rooker commented that a comparison of other counties by department could shed some light into how Albemarle stacks up. He mentioned that the County has had a goal of 1.5 police officers per thousand population, and a year ago a study was conducted that showed averages of about 2 officers per thousand. Mr. Rooker stated that that information encouraged the Board to strive for the 1.5 goal. Ms. White explained the medical and dental benefits as part of the budget, noting that the County is providing an additional $648 into each employee medical cost, and are proposing that each employee’s share for the high-level plan premium be increased by $24 per individual and $220 for family. She added that the dental insurance has increased by $20 per employee, and the County has not proposed an increase to the employees for that. Ms. White noted that the total increase for the County for health insurance is $320,000. Ms. White reviewed the vehicle replacement fund, noting that the County is setting up a fund so that vehicle replacement costs are not in the operating budget, but instead annually an amount is transferred out of department budgets into this fund; depreciation, mileage, and insurance will be factors considered. She explained that this year they took $1 per gallon of gasoline used by each department to start the fund. She said that the total cost for vehicle replacement is $600,000, and they are proposing that the current $207,000 be used to start the fund, and $453,000 one time costs be used, and each year recurring funds will be used until the level is reached for an ongoing replacement fund. Mr. Rooker asked if the $1 cost per gallon of gasoline used yielded the $207,000. Ms. White confirmed that that is how that figure came to be, adding that each department has been assigned a vehicle cost. She added that the enterprise agreement – an agreement signed with Microsoft to allow the County to continue to upgrade at no cost – costs $71,000. This guarantees that when the upgrades come out, it’s available to all County employees and it helps the Information Technology Department in terms of productivity. She added that the IT Department does not have to support several different versions, and keeps everyone on the same platform. Mr. Rooker asked if the $71,000 is a recurring cost. Mr. Breeden clarified that the cost is actually $140,000 per year. Ms. White said that the upgrades are currently in progress, and the systems should be in place this calendar year. Mr. Michael Culp explained that the first half will be done by June, and the second half will be done by September. Ms. Vinzant said there are 500 computers in the County. Ms. White added that the costs for computers and vehicles are being assigned to departments, as they are really operating costs. Mr. Breeden emphasized that those expenses are not incorporated into departmental budgets, and it is hard to compare them to other counties. In response to Mr. Boyd, Mr. Breeden confirmed that the same thing is done for hardware replacements. Mr. Breeden added that there would not usually be a need for 29 new vehicles, but since they were not funded the year before, more were needed. March 15, 2004 (Meeting Adjourned from March 10, 2004) (Page 5) Ms. White presented a slide to show actual cost of services, noting that inflation impacts the real cost. Ms. Vinzant said that the inflation rate has been 2.4 percent, but for 2004/05 it is 1.5 percent. Ms. White noted that for the school budget, the cost is based on enrollment as well as inflation. __________ Ms. White then presented General Government baseline budgets. She said that the Administration budget is $8.4 million, with the largest section of that being Finance at 40 percent, and IT at 23 percent; the County Executive’s Office (including OMB) represents 14 percent. She explained that the operational budget in FY 02 increased from $1.6 million to $1.79 million in FY 05, but if the enterprise agreement and one-time expenses are removed, the budget increase is “fairly insignificant,” up by only $40,000. Ms. White mentioned that the Strategic Management Coordinator position was restored, and $107,200 was allocated for voting machines; computer maintenance for the whole administrative section was $30,040. She noted that the increase in the Human Resources budget is due largely to more retirement costs, and the transfer to the schools for HR has increased. Mr. Boyd asked if HR for schools was adding any administrative positions. Ms. White responded that there are two new positions being requested. Mr. Dorrier asked about the voting equipment. Mr. Tucker replied that there is a new mandatory “Helping America Vote” Act that helps disabled people vote. Ms. White added that some voting machines are just to keep the County current in what it provides for all voters, and there may be some federal reimbursement for them. Mr. Breeden said that his office will track that reimbursement, and the funds have been used to update the audio for the visually impaired. __________ Mr. Foley presented the Judicial/Courts portion of the budget, noting that 51 percent is the Sheriff’s Department; the Commonwealth’s Attorney and Clerk of Court are about 22 percent. He noted that salaries and benefits make up most of the change in the budget, and overall operating costs are down slightly. Mr. Foley added that changes in the budget for the Circuit Court represent a three percent merit pool for the first time; the Commonwealth’s Attorney moved onto that system last year. There is also a plan for a multi-year phase-in for this office, and they plan to conduct the study in the coming year; there is only a slight amount of money planned to be taken out of the salary pool to begin the implementation of that study. Mr. Foley added that $6,000 in part-time wages will be funded in the Clerk of Court area, from a reduction in 2004. Mr. Foley explained that the Commonwealth’s Attorney decided to move to the County pay system in the current fiscal year, and are now included in the three percent merit pool increases. He mentioned that the proposed budget includes half of the implementation of raises based on the market salary survey, and they are planning to finish it in the following fiscal year. Mr. Boyd asked about the salary study. Mr. Foley stated that when each office comes onto the County pay system, they must look at a comparable position in other localities, and HR takes an extensive look at job descriptions, salaries, etc. Mr. Boyd asked if the Clerk and Commonwealth’s Attorney would now be in line with other localities. Mr. Foley responded that the study for Commonwealth’s Attorney is complete, and based on the results of that, one-half of the phase has been funded in the coming fiscal year – six percent or $15,000, with another $15,000 slated for the coming year. Mr. Dorrier asked Mr. Camblos if he had any comments. Mr. Camblos stated that about three years ago, he inquired about getting onto the County pay plan, and last year an agreement was reached as of July 1, 2003. Because of what happened with the state, he said, no salaries were adjusted, but merit pool increases were granted. He mentioned that his office consists of five people, and he is not included because he is an elected official. Mr. Camblos said that after meeting with Mr. Bob Brandenberger, in Human Resources, and others, he recommended salaries as shown in the handout presented. He thinks that $15,000 is less than 50 percent, for the ranges that have been suggested. He asked that instead of making this a three-year process, the Board make it a two-year process. Mr. Camblos said he is the only constitutional officer that requested to come on the County’s pay system, and emphasized that his staff does very strenuous work and should be compensated. His request is for an additional $20,000+ over what the County is recommending. Mr. Rooker said there are two issues: the number of years to phase in the increase, and the pay range recommended. Mr. Camblos said that the recommended range is what the County came up with. Mr. Rooker responded that the County came up with $14,000 from the study. Mr. Camblos said that the only one he does not have in the recommended range is Ms. Hopper, and the rest are within the range the County has recommended. Mr. Rooker stated that he does not follow the reasoning. Mr. Camblos replied that if the employee had come onto the system in July 2003, she would have received 3.8 percent. Mr. Rooker said that is assuming something that did not occur. Mr. Camblos agreed. Mr. Rooker replied, that it was never agreed that the employees were going to come onto the full system on Day 1, so now that is being assumed even though that was never the understanding. He added that he strongly supported the Commonwealth’s Attorney’s office coming online to the County pay system. Mr. Camblos said that if it had happened as planned, the employee would have been put on the system at $71,000 and would have gotten the 3.8 percent over the course of the year. Mr. Foley emphasized that the range is an updated range, but they can be worked out. Mr. Rooker stated that he is supportive of the concept, but he wants to make sure that the numbers are right, and there may be benefit costs also. Mr. Bowerman said that they must be consistent with the March 15, 2004 (Meeting Adjourned from March 10, 2004) (Page 6) Clerk and Sheriff’s offices. Mr. Dorrier noted that they did not come onto the system at the same time as Mr. Camblos’ office. Ms. Thomas asked how many County employees are not at market level. Mr. Foley responded that there may be many. Ms. Wendy Roberman said there are about 50 people below market value, as much as 15 percent below where they should be. Ms. Thomas mentioned that these employees should be put into the picture as well. Mr. Boyd asked if other Board members were in favor of a two-year plan versus a three-year plan. Mr. Rooker said that this item would need to be considered in balance with other funding priorities, and considered in the context of all items. Mr. Foley said that based on this conversation, County staff would come up with cost calculations, and present them at the next work session. Mr. Breeden emphasized that that amount may need to be estimated, as they might not be able to produce an exact figure in a couple days. Mr. Foley stated that travel and education for the Commonwealth’s Attorney’s office have also been included in this budget, as they had previously been excluded. He added that the County recommends a two-year phase-in for the other constitutional officers as well, and said there is very little money in the budget to implement it. Mr. Foley noted that there are significantly more employees in the Sheriff and Clerk of Court offices. Mr. Rooker asked if he had any idea how much that would be. Mr. Foley responded that they do not have complete salary survey figures for those offices yet. Mr. Rooker suggested that they will want to consider all of the constitutional offices, if the Commonwealth’s Attorney’s office establishes a precedent. Mr. Foley emphasized that he believes those offices understand that for the next fiscal year only a three percent merit increase is expected. He added that occasionally there is grant money available for technology from the state, but they are not expecting that. Ms. Thomas commented that the whole idea was that the Constitutional officers were supposed to be paid by the state, but now the County is assuming more and more responsibility. Mr. Rooker said that other localities are experiencing the same situation, citing Henrico County as an example. Mr. Bowerman noted that Sheriffs change, and sometimes opinions about being on the County pay system may change. Mr. Foley said that being on the County pay system is more of a benefit. Mr. Rooker commented that while on the state system, law enforcement went through three years with no raise. Mr. Foley stated that increases for the Juvenile Court reflect primarily the benefit costs. __________ Mr. Foley explained that for Public Safety, 46 percent of the total is the police department, 15 percent is fire and rescue, and the regional jail has a large share. Other fire and rescue services are at nine percent, and there is more allocated in the capital improvements budget. Looking at how the budgets have changed, Mr. Foley said that salaries and agency contributions are up, but not much has changed when the jail is removed from the equation. Mr. Rooker asked what control they have over the jail. Mr. Dorrier replied that the County can control how many federal prisoners come in. Mr. Tucker said that the Corrections Board reduced the amount of money given to the jail over the last year. He added that the actual number of inmates has remained constant, and the local Jail Board is working to try to get the state-responsible inmates and put them in state prisons, because the County is losing money on those. It may be two or three years before they have enough beds to move all of those state-responsible prisoners into the state system. Mr. Bowerman added that there will be some new jails that can accept transfers, but it may be a few years. Mr. Tucker explained that the per diem for state prisoners could be increased, but the state is not willing to do that. Ms. Thomas said that the Virginia Association of Counties has been trying to deal with it for years. Mr. Foley stated that the funding changes represent three police officer positions that had been frozen, and vehicle replacements; without those changes, there would be no increases. Mr. Boyd noted that the County still does not meet its target ratio of police officers to citizens. Mr. Foley acknowledged that the County is short 20 officers, and a plan within the Strategic Initiatives to add four or five officers a year is before the Board. Mr. Rooker said the goal has been there for a long time, and has been somewhat ignored. He expressed concern that population increases would make the County fall further and further behind. Chief John Miller provided a graph that shows the budget from 1993 to the current year. Mr. Foley said that the graph shows the County has never been up to the standard. He added that the purpose of the study is to try to provide national and statewide standards, then implement a County recommended standard. Mr. Foley reported that the study shows the County should be at 1.8, although the national average is higher; Chief Miller recommends 1.5. He added that this is a commitment they hope to see over five years. Chief Miller acknowledged that the crime rate has decreased over the years also. March 15, 2004 (Meeting Adjourned from March 10, 2004) (Page 7) Mr. Foley continued, stating that there is a $92,000 decrease in overtime wages, reflecting the fact that the department is fully staffed to current set levels. He added that there is a 2.2 percent decrease in the total cost of the Community Service/Victim Witness Program, although the operating expenses have declined sharply. Chief Miller confirmed that the total cost for the Narcotics Fund is $24,000 for investigators. Mr. Foley explained that they restored funding for the Fire Plans Review, and the budget also reflects moving firefighters that will achieve Advanced Life Support level instead of Basic Life Support, implementing a level of pay commensurate with that level of training. He added that five vehicles would also be replaced, and there is additional money for tracking response times; there is an increase in mobile phone charges. Overall, he reported, there is a decrease in the operating budget. Mr. Foley commented that the County is “forgiving some of the debt” from the local fire and rescue units, and the new budget establishes a needs-based operational funding formula, and meets 85 percent of each station’s operating costs. He added that this provides an overall 26.6 percent increase in funding, which equates to approximately $303,000 in operating funds system-wide. The County has moved away from an equal contribution formula that fails to recognize different call loads for the departments, and has moved to a needs-based formula. Mr. Foley confirmed that fire departments would be responsible for the remaining 15 percent, and the County hopes to provide the remaining 15 percent to be phased in. He said that there is $1.4 million in “forgiven” debt, which will be shifted to operations. Mr. Foley said that an additional $100,000 has been included for system-wide equipment upgrades, fire-fighting gear, and emergency vehicle repairs. He added that the new plan has been well-received by the Fire and Rescue Advisory Board. Mr. Doug Smythers, Chairman of the Fire and Rescue Advisory Board, addressed the Board. He thanked the Board for their work on the operational needs funding plan. Mr. Smythers emphasized that the fire and rescue units do need 100 percent funding. He said that if the Board could not support them on the 15 percent this year, they would be back to request it again next year. These are basic operational needs. If all 100 percent is funded, and the volunteers for instance are not able to raise any funds, the goal is the doors wouldn’t shut; it is not a frills type thing, it is purely getting trucks out the door. Mr. Smythers explained new and expanded items in the budget, including unfunded items such as positions in Scottsville, an EMS instructor, and increased contractor instructor salary funds. He said that the positions are needed for the areas that have experienced growth, and the instructor funding is needed to train personnel. Over 50 percent of what they do in the area is EMS-based. He added that he will work with the Advisory Board and get a copy of their priorities list to the Board. Board members agreed it would be helpful to have the list. Mr. Smythers introduced Ms. Tammy Johnson from Scottsville Fire and Rescue. Ms. Johnson, Assistant Chief in Scottsville, reported that last year they asked for eight paid staff, and only received three of those, which have been extremely helpful. She noted that they are EMS and ALS trained. Unfortunately, that is not enough, as most everybody knows, people are not beating down the door to volunteer with fire and rescue anymore. Ms. Johnson said that adding five to their staff would allow them to provide 24-hour service, seven days a week to Southern Albemarle. She added that their staffing has decreased their dependence on other stations to help out with their two to three daily calls. Ms. Johnson emphasized that several days the building was completely unstaffed. Mr. Dorrier asked if they had a handle on calls that assist Buckingham, Fluvanna, and Nelson. Ms. Johnson replied that they do receive $6,500 from Fluvanna annually, but that is the only locality that provides any additional funding, although they have requested contributions from Nelson and Buckingham. She added that their call rate has gone up to help Buckingham County. Mr. Foley mentioned that they have done tracking that indicates approximately 25 percent of calls are going to outside the County, especially in light of the ALS service. Ms. Thomas asked how much the additional fireman would add to the budget. Mr. Rooker said the budget seems to indicate $60,000 per position. Mr. Foley noted that that includes some one-time start-up costs. Mr. Dorrier asked how many times other localities help service Albemarle. Ms. Johnson responded not very often, if any at all. She added that Nelson has come to a couple of calls on the western border of Albemarle, but that is rare. Mr. Dorrier suggested contacting the other localities to work on a sharing arrangement. Mr. Foley said that now would be a good time to make a request. Mr. Tucker agreed to draft a letter under Mr. Dorrier’s signature. He mentioned that this has been attempted in the past without much success. Mr. Johnson said that Fluvanna has been helpful, but Nelson and Buckingham have not offered. Mr. Smythers indicated that this problem has occurred with many localities east of Albemarle towards Richmond. He added that Scottsville positions are listed seconded on the list, but really should be first. Mr. Rooker said that in the budget, he sees two positions requested for the North Station, but none for Scottsville. Mr. Foley acknowledged that there is a difference between what staff is recommending and what came from the Advisory Board. Mr. Smythers offered to work with the Board as needed. March 15, 2004 (Meeting Adjourned from March 10, 2004) (Page 8) Mr. Lanny Moore, President of the East Rivanna Volunteer Fire Department, addressed the Board. He reported that the County staff is recommending that they do not pay any outside loans, and the fire stations were sort of promised that all loans would be forgiven. Mr. Moore reminded the Board that Rivanna purchased a piece of equipment, and did not use County funding by an agreement that has now been totally dissolved. He said that East Rivanna has an outstanding debt of $83,860 on one piece of equipment, with a $24,000 annual payment. Mr. Moore asked the Board to consider funding that. Mr. Dorrier asked what had been decided about this. Mr. Foley replied that they purchased it on their own because they were not comfortable with the original arrangement suggested by the County. He said that the piece of equipment would have been purchased by the County, as it was justified. Mr. Foley added that there was a limited amount of money available for loan, and basically someone else got the funding. Mr. Rooker recalled that one of the hurdles with the agreement was what happens to equipment if it is retired. He assumes that that understanding still remains in place for people who finance through the County. Mr. Foley responded that there is a whole policy that goes with the lending formula, and one policy clarifies that the equipment cannot just be sold off; the County must be consulted for decisions about what happens to it. That is something that the whole system has agreed to. Mr. Rooker asked about this specific piece of equipment. Mr. Foley replied that the equipment was needed, and an argument could be made that it would have been funded out of the allocation fund. The County did not have the information on the payoff or interest rate or any of that information until now.” He said the Board could put it on their list. Mr. Rooker asked if Fire & Rescue would be willing to have the equipment subject to the same agreements and understandings that apply to all the other equipment for debt being forgiven. Mr. Davis clarified that the County’s position has been during the useful life of the equipment, the equipment has to be used or the County has to agree how it is to be disposed of to assure that the equipment the County has provided remains in use for Albemarle County. Mr. Foley said that according to the new funding formula, what has been discussed is less stringent, but also gives the County a commitment they would be satisfied with. Mr. Rooker stated that he wants to ensure that the equipment is subject to the same kinds of understanding that everyone else’s equipment is subject to. Mr. Boyd asked what happens when the debt is forgiven, where the proceeds would go. Mr. Dan Eggleston, Director of Fire and Rescue, replied that any proceeds would go to the volunteer fire department. That creates an incentive program to care for the units and make sure they get useful life out of it. Mr. Rooker asked if there were an arrangement where a piece of equipment could be used in another location. Mr. Eggleston responded that their replacement plan is based on the useful life of the vehicle, and they have criteria for 15 and 20 years based on mileage; at the end of those times, it is determined whether the vehicle can be serviced. Mr. Dorrier asked what the Board would like to do about the $83,000. Mr. Rooker replied that he would like to see a prioritization of Fire & Rescue items. Mr. Tucker said that the County would use non- recurring money for the equipment cost, and recurring money for the positions, and some of the staff funding is non-recurring. Mr. Boyd suggested that some costs be split over several fiscal years. Ms. Thomas emphasized that the number of staff that respond to a call can impact how quickly a fire is handled, and how it impacts firefighters. She mentioned that she attended a fire response demonstration that illustrated the importance of having an adequate team. (Note: At 3:15 p.m., the Chairman called a recess. The Board reconvened at 3:25 p.m.) Mr. Foley said that the funding changes in the Building Codes reflect the realignment of expenditures due to the reorganization of the development departments. He mentioned that there are two vehicles being replaced, and 20 percent in operating budget increases, but those do not really reflect increases in expenditures and are just due to the reorganization. Mr. Foley pointed out that there is a seven percent increase in ECC operation, reflecting the first year operating costs for the 800 mhz radio system; the jail increase is 31.9 percent; the juvenile detention facility needs additional funding. He mentioned that the SPCA increase reflects approval of a funding formula put in place last year, and there is a small increase in the OAR office. Ms. Thomas asked if that budget is based on state support of the Drug court. Ms. White replied that the 3.3 percent increase is for base funding, and the recommendation for the Drug Court is within the high priority initiatives that are recommended but not funded. She added that they are hopeful to get state funds, but do not know yet. Mr. Bowerman noted that keeping people out of the Charlottesville jail is less expensive for the City and County. __________ Mr. Foley moved onto Engineering, General Services and Public Works. He explained that the total budget is $3 million, with Administration comprising 30 percent of the budget, and Maintenance making 30 percent. Mr. Foley said that benefits and salaries reflect most of the increase in this area, but there is some March 15, 2004 (Meeting Adjourned from March 10, 2004) (Page 9) change because of the Development realignment. Mr. Foley mentioned that there is a $20,000 increase for a newspaper recycling program, and that amount was not in the current year’s budget. Mr. Bowerman asked if the haulers were picking up newspapers. Ms. Thomas and Mr. Rooker confirmed that the haulers are picking up newspapers. Mr. Foley explained that the $22,000 increase in bulk waste amnesty days is a reflection of how many residents have taken advantage of that program. Mr. Rooker asked how much in revenue is reaped from the newspaper recycling. Mr. Mark Graham, Director of Community Development, replied that the revenue from newspaper recycling covers the containers and debagging costs. Mr. Dorrier asked if the rest of the recycling program is working. Mr. Graham responded that there is not curbside recycling for anything except newspapers, but containers and paper can be taken to the McIntire facility. Ms. Thomas asked if there was any plan to budget for additional recycling. Mr. Graham replied that the solid waste program would be brought back to the Board as part of the Strategic Plan Initiatives over the summer, and then from there they are looking at a curbside recycling program. The problem is, everything is still costly, t is very expensive to operate. He added that the City no longer recycles their paper through Rivanna. He does think staff will have something ready for FY 06. Ms. Thomas asked what is taking so long. Mr. Graham replied that the plan was for solid waste to be covered with the Strategic Plan in the summer. Ms. Thomas commented that it’s taken over a year to get the item on the table. Mr. Graham said that the majority of tonnage of recycling is newspapers. He added that they continue to struggle with finding someone to recycle materials such as green glass, noting that they discovered some of the items were being taken to the landfill. Mr. Rooker emphasized that the County needs to make sure that there is a market for that stuff if the County says it’s going to start or participate in the program. Mr. Boyd commented that it would be disingenuous to inform residents that recycling is available if the County knows it just ends up in the landfill. Mr. Foley said that it takes longer to move items along when there is a citizen committee involved. Mr. Wyant stated that there will soon be a change in recycling and use of metals such as steel because the costs of metals are increasing. Mr. Rooker noted that the key to a successful recycling program is having someone to purchase the materials. Mr. Foley added that the only other operating increases in this area relate to the COB-South in the coming year. Mr. Tucker mentioned that there is funding in the CIP already for recycling centers. The staff did not want to move forward on that until the Board had adopted the right strategy to move forward. He added that there will be $1.8 million for Rivanna to use in remediation and operating costs next year because of some carryover funds from CIP. There are going to be some fairly significant costs to the County and City regarding remediation. Once Rivanna gets past FY ‘08, basically, costs – at least projections – are dropping significantly. He thinks Rivanna will have an easy way of handling it after that. How the County handles the next three years – starting in FY ‘06 – is the key, whether the Board finances the costs here with its own revenues, or whether the costs are financed through a utility fee. He emphasized that it is not imperative that the Board do anything for next year, but it is important to be decided for the following fiscal year. Mr. Boyd asked for the total dollars and time frame. Mr. Graham replied that the environmental costs go from $1 million for this year/next year to $3 million for two years after that, then $2 million the year after that; it will stay at $500,000 to $700,000 for six or seven years after that. Beyond that, $500,000 for the next 25 years. Mr. Tucker emphasized that that is for City and County. Mr. Rooker said that the total expenditures would be $13 or $14 million. It is really Rivanna’s liability, but right now the City and County are pretty much the only source of funds for Rivanna. He added that the best way to pay the expenses may be to just meet them head on, instead of trying to finance the program. Mr. Tucker said that it won’t be a matter of just funding it through utilities – they are looking at increasing the tipping fees. Mr. Rooker commented that what makes it complicated is the City’s approach, and Rivanna is a joint operation. Tipping fees really need to be instigated at the Rivanna level. Ms. Thomas said that this is a new responsible that the County picked up when there was not enough money coming in from Ivy Landfill tipping fees. She argued two years ago that the Board ought to raise a penny or a portion of a penny and dedicate it to this because it was a brand new category of responsibility. She lost that argument. Mr. Rooker stated that he didn’t disagree with that plan, but feels that there are other ways to allocate the cost to the users, like tipping fees. Mr. Graham said that the Ivy operation is breaking even, and the McIntire site is losing about $250,000 a year, split between the City and County. Mr. Boyd asked if the City is paying their fair share at the Ivy landfill. Mr. Graham replied that there is a service contribution fee that the City is still withholding, pending a final agreement on a cost-share. Mr. Rooker pointed out that the City has never made any offer to pay the fees. They do not think that it’s really owed. Mr. Dorrier suggested setting another session to discuss the recycling and solid waste issues. Mr. Tucker replied that once the citizen committee finalizes its suggestions, it will come to the Board and then hard numbers can be looked at; that is in the future. March 15, 2004 (Meeting Adjourned from March 10, 2004) (Page 10) __________ Ms. White presented the Human Development budget, noting that Social Services comprise 45 percent; the Comprehensive Services Act comprises 34 percent. Mr. Rooker asked how there was a decrease. Ms. White presented a chart showing comparative changes in the budget. She said that agency budgets remained relatively flat, with operations increasing between FY 02/03 and FY 04/05. Ms. White noted that when CSA foster care and social services rent are removed, there is a decrease from the previous two years. Ms. White explained that foster care is 100 percent federally reimbursable, and noted that the rent for social services will be reimbursed. She noted that other operating costs have gone down. Ms. White noted that the Family Support Program is helping to decrease foster care numbers. Some of those preventative efforts are starting to pay off, and hopefully the County will start to see those numbers go down. She noted that the school costs for dealing with some of these families are increasing. Mr. Paul McWhinny, Assistant Director of Social Services, said that Special Education costs have been increasing. He added that CSA is being restructured, and there is will be one Family Assessment Planning Team instead of four. Ms. White mentioned that the utilization manager cost is being absorbed within the CSA allocation, and a part-time CSA coordinator position ($13,000) has been added into the transfer. Mr. Rooker asked what was going on with the decrease in state and federal revenues for the entire Human Development department, and how the County is dealing with that. Mr. Breeden replied that whenever there is small increase in local costs, the state provides very little extra revenue. Mr. Rooker asked why the requests were actually less. Mr. Breeden responded that the revenues reflect a better tracking of line-by line subsidies and relief grants. The staff is really tracking those revenues a whole lot better than it has previously; the staff overestimated revenues in previous years. Mr. Rooker noted that the budget shows $394,000 in increased expense approved in the current budget, or 2.2 percent over the prior year; the budget shows revenues from other sources declining $811,000, resulting in a $1 million increase in expense to the General Fund. Ms. White commented that the majority of the revenue decrease comes from the Family Support and Comprehensive Services funds. She explained that those funds are separate, and state and federal reimbursements have declined. Mr. Rooker asked if the net increase of $1 million is accurate. He asked if the staff is predicting that this year the social services are going to cost the County budget $1 million more than last year. Ms. White replied that that figure is accurate, largely in part to salary and benefit increases, with state revenues being flat for many years. Mr. Rooker said he was just appalled at the lack of the state funding for their mandated social services in the community. Mr. Dorrier asked about the recommendation from County staff that the Boys and Girls clubs receive no funding, noting that they have been effective around the country. Ms. Saphira Baker, Director of the Commission on Children and Families, addressed the Board to explain. She said that there is a team of 12 people that review agencies, and this year they operated within a three percent increase. Ms. Baker stated that the Boys and Girls Club was reviewed along with the same criteria, and they requested new programs for which they could not demonstrate a community need. She said that the team did not feel that the Boys and Girls Club demonstrated the new initiatives would be a wise use of local resources. This is no reflection of the quality of the Boys and Girls clubs; these were really new initiatives. Ms. White explained that the agencies overall were given a three percent increase. She mentioned that some got above that, especially for agencies that needed to be “caught up” from previous years of no funding. Ms. Thomas asked if Family Support Services had been cut. Ms. White said that the current budget cuts it by $11,000, with an assumption that that funding comes from other sources. The program has been self-supporting, the initial request of $359,000 still leaves two vacant positions there. She added that there is $175,000 in cost allocation money never budgeted for that comes back to the County for social services, which they could use for the Family Support Program. Ms. White said that social services think they might recoup $177,000 in end-of-year carryover money, also. Mr. Rooker asked how Region Ten fares in this budget, given their level of government funding. Ms. White responded that that agency has lost a lot of general funds, especially Medicaid dollars. She said that state funding has not covered salary increases, and most of their local budget includes attempts to try to keep up with compensation. Ms. White stated that Region Ten has requested $497,000, but the County is only recommending $440,000. They are still going to be short. Ms. White stated that SHE and SACA received level funding, and the Health District received their request. She added that budget review team tried to stay within a three percent allocation, with some agencies getting more because of their score, and some getting a little bit less. Ms. White noted that there is a mistake in the numbers for the Children Youth and Family Services budget. Ms. Thomas asked about Worksource Enterprise. Ms. White replied that they did not request funding, and they have been doing the emergency utilities program that used to be run by the Salvation Army, but they have now asked MACAA to take it over. __________ March 15, 2004 (Meeting Adjourned from March 10, 2004) (Page 11) Ms. White reported on the Parks, Recreation, and Culture section of the budget, noting that the libraries comprise 49 percent of that budget, with agency contributions at 10 percent and Parks and Recreation operations at 38 percent. She pointed out that operations costs have actually gone down, and there has been a small increase in professional services for programs, usually offset by revenues for those programs. Ms. White said there are small increases for computer repair and vehicle replacement. Ms. White noted that there is a decrease to WVPT Television, and an increase to WHTJ. She explained that WHTJ asked for a 10-cent per capita budget, and the County took that figure and split it between the two stations. Ms. White said that unfunded agencies are First Night Virginia and the Virginia Historical Society, and the County is using $500,000 from tourism funds to offset some groups that are considered tourist-related. Mr. Tucker explained that there is a new agreement with the Visitors Center for 30 percent of the gross revenue from the lodging tax. He said the new agreement would expand the size of the Visitors Management Board, but does not call for any funding from the Chamber of Commerce. The staff feel pretty good about this agreement; this budget is funded basically on the new agreement. Mr. Foley mentioned that the County Fair also falls within this section of the budget. Ms. Shifflett reported that the County Fair has experienced adverse weather for the last five years, and have hence had a big loss in gate receipts. She said that they have trimmed their overall budget in these years, and for 2004 they have reduced their budget by one-third. She stated that they are currently raising funds for Fair operations through events, sponsorships, and donation solicitations. Ms. Shifflett said that their “buffer account” to cover one adverse year has positively dwindled. rd Ms. Shifflett stressed that the Albemarle County Fair, in its 23 year, is the only event of its kind in the community that offers something for everyone. They reach out to non-profits and businesses, to families, youth and seniors, and is the only event that celebrates our rich agricultural heritage. It is the sharing of performing arts, crafts and culinary talents, family-style entertainment, and agricultural education. She pointed out that the Fair has only requested funding from the County once – in 2001, after it had rained every day of the 2000 fair. Ms. Shifflett confirmed that the amount requested is $10,000. Mr. Rooker stated that he would like that amount to be included on the list for consideration. Other members agreed. Mr. Dorrier asked if the Fair is any closer to finding a permanent home. Ms. Shifflett responded that they are actively looking for the proper site, with adequate access. Mr. Rooker asked if it would be possible to schedule the Fair to be held before children return to school. Ms. Shifflett replied that they are in the final contract with the amusement company this year, and the Fair representatives would like to have the date earlier. They found out that the Rockingham County Fair will be expanding their fair to the first week of August. She emphasized that they are trying hard to change the date, but hesitated because of discussions for year-round schools. Ms. Thomas commented that the library’s baseline budget may be affected by previous carryover funding. Ms. White replied that there is a three percent increase - $60,000, and the library has indicated they need an additional $6,300, without any new initiatives. She presented statistics on the library budget, citing County contributions and carryover. Ms. White emphasized that the money needed just for a baseline increase – no new initiatives – represents a six percent jump from last year. Mr. Rooker asked what other communities were doing. Ms. White responded that those localities are funding the full baseline budget. She noted that the City gave a three percent increase. Mr. Rooker asked why a three percent increase from the City would fund the baseline, but a three percent increase from the County would not. Ms. White replied that the City did not use carryover, whereas the County portion did. Mr. Rooker expressed his displeasure with how the library handles their funding requests. If they do not get everything they ask for, they basically circulate information that their budget has been cut. And the implication of that to the people clearly sending all these emails out is that they are getting less money than the got last year, so they are going to have cut services. That is the way it reads. He stated that the reality is a $63,000 increase, and it’s up to them to decide how to spend their budget, noting that last year they mentioned the bookmobile as being cut. He does not appreciate it. Ms. White said that the Crozet and Scottsville libraries have been mentioned as having reduced services. Ms. White stated that Mr. John Halliday of JMRL said they have funded the base requests, but not new initiatives. Mr. Dorrier suggested having library representatives come to a meeting to discuss this. Mr. Rooker stated that he would like an explanation of their total budget in writing. __________ Mr. Foley reported on the category of Community Development/Housing. He said the Community Development portion of the budget makes up over $6 million of the total budget, with 71 percent of that reflecting the reorganization into one department. He noted that salaries and benefits make up the largest amount, and the change in operations is really below what it had been in the past. Mr. Foley presented the divisions within the newly formed, combined department, noting that the Zoning Plans Reviewer and Senior Planner positions that had been frozen in 2004 have been reinstated. He added that there is also $15,000 March 15, 2004 (Meeting Adjourned from March 10, 2004) (Page 12) for consulting to be added to the baseline to begin including the next Neighborhood Master Plan. Mr. Rooker asked why Community Development benefits increased by 25 percent, when other departments have increased by 16 percent. Mr. Breeden responded that it is complicated to compare departments because of the combining, and he believes a large portion relates to allocation of current year expenses. Mr. Foley said that the agencies in Community Development have seen an overall three percent increase, except for the Virginia Cooperative Extension, reflecting lack of contribution for salary and benefits increases, and MACAA, reflecting taken over the CARES program that provides emergency assistance to families in the community. He mentioned that a requested from the Central Virginia Small Business Development Center is unfunded in this budget. Ms. Thomas asked for clarification on the funding of Soil and Water Conservation support staff, and commented that ACE needs more sufficient funding. She said that every year that there is a delay in purchasing development rights, property values go up, and less and less is available for the dollar. Mr. Rooker commented that when this was discussed before, the process was working slowly enough that there was $1.5 to $2 million unspent. Mr. Foley said that the staff have just received this month the properties that would be done this fiscal year, adding that Mr. Breeden had discovered there is $1.7 million unspent. He said that that money should be carried forward, but more can certainly be added to it. Mr. Foley pointed out that in the next fiscal year, the pot will total $2.1 million, and when the County close on purchases on existing parcels, there may not be enough to cover those purchases. Ms. Thomas said that there are properties that have been asked for in 2003, and five of those have been recommended for appraisal, and asked if the process would not be finished until 2005. Mr. Foley replied that the staff hopes to have those finished in this fiscal year, but the properties that have already been submitted for the next phase have just come in now. Ms. Thomas said the applications were accepted in summer 2003, and of those, five properties have been recommended for purchase. Mr. Foley said that the Board can certainly add more money and more properties. Mr. Bowerman said that there will always be money in the pipeline, with about $1 million spent each year. Mr. Boyd asked why there could not just be a policy where it would be funded as $1 million in unencumbered funds at all times. Mr. Bowerman emphasized that $1 million a year is the commitment. Mr. Breeden said that he has struggled with how to budget for ACE, because they don’t always fall cleanly into one year. He tries to look at it more in a total view on every piece of property that the County has an application on, if they all qualify or if the decision is made to close on every one of them, does the County have enough money laying there right now to fund them. Ms. Thomas commented that the thinking is there has been more than enough money, but said that the five existing properties might take all of what is there. Mr. Wyant added that the Board just does not want to be short in the future. Mr. Boyd said that it seems the County staff has calculated that $350,000 this year would be enough to prevent that. Mr. Foley stated that even if they are short, it would be covered with any carry-over so that property owners are not lost if they have applied. Ms. Thomas added that $350,000 might not work because that can only be used for tourism value. Some of the properties qualify for tourism funds and some do not. Mr. Foley replied that staff has been told that they all qualify for tourism funds. Mr. Rooker said the County does not know yet what those 2003 properties may cost. Mr. Davis stated that he believes all except one qualify for tourism in the 2003 batch. Mr. Cilimberg commented that the staff has not yet taken applications for 2004-05. Staff is trying to finish the FY 02-03, process FY 03-04, and they do not know right now what the FY 04-05 are going to be. He emphasized that it has taken more than a year in each cycle so far, which means that if a level amount is funded each year, there will be a carry-over of money. Mr. Boyd asked what the program expenditures have been. Mr. Cilimberg replied that the first year $1.1 million was spent; the second year $694,000 was spent, and the third year will see $1.2 million in expenditures. Mr. Rooker commented that that is about $1 million per year. __________ Mr. Breeden presented information on projected revenues for five years of the Capital Improvement Plan, noting that that is a total of $126 million. He reported that 21 percent is funded from local revenues with a growth-sharing formula; about 70 percent is borrowed money. In response to Mr. Rooker’s question regarding transportation funding, Mr. Foley replied that the County tries to budget each year an amount in anticipation that the Board will approve some revenue- sharing with VDOT. Ms. Thomas asked if CTS is included. Mr. Foley replied that buses are funded in the operating budget. Ms. White stated that these projects were already been approved last year for a two-year time period. What Board members are seeing in this presentation is just amendments to that approved capital plan. March 15, 2004 (Meeting Adjourned from March 10, 2004) (Page 13) Mr. Breeden continued, stating that the total CIP over five years is $27 million; the largest portion of that is the school at 40 percent, with public safety second. He confirmed that what is being presented now is what the County can expect to spend on capital improvements in the coming fiscal year. Mr. Rooker stated that the County should try to take advantage of revenue sharing as much as possible. The County spends every dollar it’s gotten. When the staff looks at projects they think are particularly important, if there is money out there that we can get in any year by making an additional allocation, the County should try to capture those dollars. Mr. Breeden said that the money is allocated, but the state is not getting to those projects quickly. Mr. Rooker asked if it was possible to expend money with the idea that future matching contributions could be applied for, such as for the Southern Connector. Mr. Cilimberg responded that the state has not allowed the County to approve funds over several years of revenue-sharing, although they have allowed the County to get funding twice on some projects. He added that other projects that were delayed would take money out of secondary program funds. The Board is still going to be in the same position money-wise. It doesn’t change the money position. Mr. Breeden emphasized that the money currently accrued has been identified for specific projects, and always has to be. VDoT do not just do the project and then bill us for our share. Mr. Rooker noted that the Old Ivy Road project has been moved down on the list, and it might be helpful to have a list of what’s been approved. Mr. Cilimberg mentioned that the last six-year financial plan the Board saw includes information on revenue-sharing money that has been or will be allocated on a project-by-project basis. Mr. Breeden noted that the Juvenile Court expansion of $1.6 million, based on the final agreement, will see increased costs related to the parking deck. He said that Monticello Visitors Center needs repairs, which will be shared at a cost of $488,000 total, including the roof and other renovations. Mr. Breeden added that if it is delayed, it may cost more in the long run. He noted that the Health Department needs repairs, which can be paid for with rental fees except for $50,000 that will be shared by the City and the County. Mr. Breeden said that the County office buildings also need renovations, with $1.6 currently allocated for that. Mr. Rooker said that he hoped the microphone system would be upgraded along with the Board room renovations. He added that he had attended a meeting at the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, and they had a mike in the center of the table that picked everyone up fine, better than the individual microphone system in the Board Room in the County office building. Mr. Breeden stated that additional funding would be provided for the five-year Neighborhood Plan, including $700,000 in the next fiscal year. He stated that there are eight or ten projects that are a part of that. Mr. Cilimberg noted that many of those improvements are in Crozet, and are also included in the Crozet Master Plan. Mr. Tucker said that there is $275,000 for State Farm Boulevard Pantops sidewalks, $50,000 for site planning and development for the new library in Crozet, $75,000 for planning for the western park in Crozet, and $500,000 for development of Main Street in Crozet. Those have been identified in the Crozet Master Plan as projects. Mr. Rooker commented that Georgetown Road – the busiest road in Albemarle County – has had a number of improvements planned that have never been funded. The County is talking about spending money in areas where it may have growth, and yet not spending money in areas that already have the growth, where necessary safety improvements, etc., have been identified. Mr. Rooker said if the County is not going to fund Georgetown Road in the secondary road plan, he would like to see it get in the CIP. He emphasized that the County needs to fund areas that have already experienced growth, not just areas that are anticipated to grow, especially those that have been in the plans for improvements. Mr. Rooker questioned the logic of funding Pantops sidewalks, when there are several schools with lots of kids walking along Georgetown Road. Ms. Thomas commented that Route 20 is less safe. Mr. Rooker said that that is funded. Other Board members agreed that they need to review the six-year plan and see what is up for funding, and what is not. Mr. Rooker clarified that some projects that are more acute may need to be folded into the CIP, rather than waiting for them to come online with the six-year plan. Mr. Boyd asked Mr. Foley to explain what improvements are planned for Crozet. Mr. Foley replied that sidewalks and a Main Street for Crozet are included in that part of the CIP funding. Ms. Thomas noted that there are grant applications related to the Crozet project, and she views the CIP as a source of funds that will probably not come from the state. Mr. Rooker commented that if a project such as the Eastern Connector – which will likely be funded by the secondary road monies – would take everything if it costs $60 or $70 million. Unless this Board is willing to look at doing some of these things in the CIP program that we identify as important, the projects are going to be there for a long time. He stated that in the coming year, the Board needs to look at projects case-by-case and prioritize what is funded by CIP. Mr. Breeden continued with his presentation, noting that there is funding recommended for temporary employees to assist in systems upgrading for the Human Resources Department. He said that March 15, 2004 (Meeting Adjourned from March 10, 2004) (Page 14) there is $100,000 additional recommended for apparatus replacement. Mr. Breeden summarized that there is a recommended increase in $4.9 million added to the original CIP approved last year of $22.5 million, raising the total to $27.4 million. He emphasized that the revisions do not include changes for stormwater or schools. Mr. Rooker asked where the money comes from for the increase. Mr. Breeden replied that the revenue-sharing/growth formula referred to earlier of approximately three to four percent provided an extra $2 million, and reserves are in place to be used for these projects. He added that the total reserves going into the coming year are $5 million, but half will be used in this budget. Mr. Breeden confirmed that $2 million would be used by the school system, and mentioned that there is revenue from state construction funding and technology funding. Mr. Wyant asked about the stormwater plans. Mr. Graham said that his staff would be coming to the Board in April to present a stormwater master plan to provide information on what levels of service could be provided and financial strategies for how to pay for it. Mr. Wyant expressed concern about the maintenance and long-term costs of stormwater. Mr. Foley said that there is a minimal amount of staff dedicated to that, and there is a request to expand that, and Mr. Graham would present a plan as to how to pay for it. Mr. Wyant also emphasized the need to coordinate with the schools, as they are handling a lot of the County’s funds. __________ Mr. Tucker concluded that he has made a list of items the Board wants to consider to be brought back to them with additional information to finalize the budget. Mr. Rooker commented that guidance from County staff is important in the process. _______________ Adjourn: At 5:30 p.m., with no further business to come before the Board, motion was offered by Mr. Rooker, seconded by Mr. Boyd, to adjourn this meeting until March 17, 2004, at 1:00 p.m., in Room 235, for another work session on the budget. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier. NAYS: None. ________________________________________ Chairman Approved by the Board of County Supervisors Date: 03/02/2005 Initials: DBM