Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-03-23A March 23, 2005 (Adjourned Meeting from March 21, 2005) (Page 1) An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on March 23, 2005, beginning at 2:00 p.m. in Room 235, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. This meeting was adjourned from March 21, 2005. 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, Senior Deputy Clerk, Debi Moyers, Assistant County Executive, Tom Foley, Assistant County Executive, Roxanne White, Director of Office of Management and Budget, Melvin Breeden, Budget Analyst, Laura Vinzant, and Budget Analyst, Chris Bever. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 2:00 p.m. by the Chairman, Mr. Rooker. Work Session: FY 2005-06 COUNTY BUDGET: Board Discussion and Wrap Up. Approve Proposed Budget for Public Hearing. Set 2005 Tax Rates for Public Hearing. Mr. Tucker reported on the impact of a proposed two-cent tax reduction, including its impact on transportation initiatives and debt service. He said that the reserve would be $2.9 million based on the current 76-cent tax rate, and if that were reduced to 74 cents, the reserve would drop to $539,000. Mr. Tucker said that the tax relief for the elderly would take up $200,000 of that off the top. He said that $219,000 would be added to the Board’s reassessment reserve, making the total surplus $515,000. Mr. Tucker said that using that $515,000 could fund the retiree health insurance, three Scottsville/ Monticello rescue squad personnel and vehicles, and transfer to ACE (non-recurring). He emphasized that none of this has been approved, and the Board would have time to decide which initiatives to move forward with in the coming year. Mr. Breeden explained that the items the Board has already agreed on appear in the Functional Areas of the budget, and the undecided items are in a contingency until the Board assigns them. Staff said that many initiatives would be beginning July 1. Mr. Tucker said that if all of the contingency initiatives were funded, they would cost $562,000, which would leave a $46,900 negative balance in that reserve. He suggested taking $150,000 from the fund balance of non-recurring funds, which would net out to $103,100. Mr. Dorrier asked how the $150,000 was moved. Mr. Tucker replied that the $150,000 was taken from the end-of-year fund balance for the current year, even with a two-cent tax rate reduction. Mr. Breeden pointed out that there are one-time expenses that have already been accounted for within the budget, such as vehicle replacement for Parks & Recreation. Mr. Tucker said that the increase in operations spending is 8.9 percent with the two-cent reduction, and capital expenditures would further reduce that increase to 4.3 percent. Mr. Boyd stated that the tax reduction brings a 9.9 percent increase down to 8.9 percent. Mr. Rooker asked about a list of unfunded mandates and their associated costs. Mr. Tucker responded that both schools and local government have those expenses, and staff would work to provide a composite of all of those mandates. Mr. Rooker commented that constitutional officers, transportation, and other items that were initially funded by the state and no longer are, should be included for schools and general government. Mr. Tucker noted that it is not easy to do, but staff would work on getting the big-ticket items listed. Mr. Bowerman asked about the proposed total budget and proposed general fund budget as listed in the information presented. Mr. Tucker replied that in the proposed total budget, transfers to schools would be taken out, and they are not included in the regular general fund budget as presented. Mr. Breeden said that the fund shows all monies that come into the general fund. The first one includes the total budget – which includes the special revenue funds. It shows all of the county monies that are being expended into different funds. Mr. Dorrier asked what the actual budget for Albemarle County is. Mr. Tucker and Mr. Breeden responded that the total amount is $253.9 million if a two-cent tax reduction is granted. Mr. Wyant asked if capital increased somewhat. Mr. Tucker replied that when he submitted his budget, school staff and government staff were still working on the CIP, and this budget includes those changes. He mentioned that some projects had been moved to the beginning of the CIP cycle, but two previously proposed schools have been eliminated in the out years. March 23, 2005 (Adjourned Meeting from March 21, 2005) (Page 2) Mr. Breeden noted that schools and local government met and agreed how capital projects would be funded, which resulted in the school allocation increasing by $800,000 over five years, with more of it shifting into the first and second year of the five-year plan. Mr. Breeden confirmed that the $800,000 represents an increase over Mr. Tucker’s original recommended budget for the five-year period versus the consensus reached with school staff over what the CIP should be. Mr. Rooker commented that additional amounts would be moved in the next five years, and would taper off after that. Mr. Boyd expressed concern over increasing CIP funds to schools when enrollment is declining. Mr. Rooker responded that there are trailers at Albemarle High School, and increasing capacity for the high school should happen at Albemarle or Western, noting that School Board members do not currently agree on where that expansion should occur. Mr. Rooker said that what the Supervisors need to do at this point is make provisions for it in the CIP in the event it arises. Mr. Boyd emphasized that the county’s needs need to be considered in the same way schools’ needs have been. To do that, it’s fully the School Board’s responsibility to decide on how they spend their capital funds, but how much we allocate is our responsibility. Ms. White noted that there was a consensus among school and county staff on how to assign that funding, including support of a strategy to level off school’s debt service, while county debt service increases. Mr. Boyd said that that only deals with the CIP, not the operating funds. Mr. Dorrier stated that it is time to reevaluate the 60/40 formula. Mr. Rooker reminded the Board that they had agreed to have a work session with the School Board before fall to discuss the operating split, with the other part being a work session on how the CIP is done in terms of project evaluation, etc. Mr. Wyant commented that schools should go through the same CIP process as the county. Mr. Tucker said he thinks that is what the Board has to be frank about and discuss with the School Board. Mr. Tucker noted that the Board had decided to move the Southern Urban area park into the out years, and mentioned that the cost of the land had been taken out because there may be proffers available and land is already owned next to the Monticello Fire Station. He added that staff would be discussing the option of adding $1.5 million for transportation projects, and the impact on the reserve balance. Mr. Breeden stated that debt service has been kept below the AAA average up to now, but it is increasing and getting close to the margin over the five-year period. Mr. Wyant asked if the 5.94 percent debt service ratio is actual. Mr. Breeden replied that that is where we are right now, and added that the tax rate reduction would impact how much is transferred to CIP. Mr. Breeden said that if the $1.5 million from the reserve balance is used to fund transportation initiatives, it doesn’t really have an impact on the debt service. He noted that if the transportation is funded at $1.5 million each year, by the fifth year, the debt service ratio becomes 7.07 percent, which is just above the AAA average. Mr. Breeden explained that what is presented makes the assumption that the $1.5 million would come out of the capital reserve balance or “pay as you go.” He said the other model assumes that the county would borrow and finance the $1.5 million. Mr. Rooker said that the plan is to put $1.5 million towards transportation each year, whether it be used for debt service financing, projects, etc. Mr. Foley stated that transportation funds may be gleaned from a transportation district structure, instead of local monies being used. Mr. Breeden said that the $1.5 million would need to be taken from local revenue, unless a different structure were established. Mr. Foley mentioned that there will be transportation work sessions to iron out priority items and funding strategies. Ms. Thomas commented that the Board has not reached any consensus at this point to always put $1.5 million in local funds aside for transportation. That adds a penny and a half on the real estate tax. Mr. Boyd suggested that it go to referendum. March 23, 2005 (Adjourned Meeting from March 21, 2005) (Page 3) Mr. Rooker pointed out that only 49 percent of total revenue comes from real estate tax. The Board can say that about everything in the budget. Mr. Wyant noted that the $1.5 million figure was used for discussion. Mr. Rooker mentioned that funds for transportation would qualify for a match. Mr. Tucker showed the impact on the capital fund balance with several different scenarios being implemented. He noted that it would be a few years before the money could be spent anyway. Mr. Boyd said that he is still “a little bit foggy” on what happened to the CIP funds that were originally earmarked for a new elementary school. Mr. Breeden pointed out that the school’s CIP money is usually borrowed funds that would not impact the reserve balance. Mr. Dorrier asked if the county had ever discussed these financial matters with VDOT. Mr. Tucker responded that most of the proposed transportation projects are local, and if the county is going to make a dent in any of those transportation projects, it almost has to be done locally unless the state’s going to come through. Mr. Dorrier said that he believes the county should still meet with VDOT. Mr. Rooker explained that he serves on the MPO, and they’ve had numerous meetings with Butch Davies. He noted that new legislation effective July 1 would change some of the funding allocations, adding that VDOT does not sit in Culpeper and decide what we get. What the county gets for secondary road funding is basically done on a formula; they allocate it down for secondary road projects based on a formula. Mr. Rooker said that he spends about eight or ten hours a week on transportation funding and specific projects through the Transportation Funding Committee, its subcommittee, and MPO committee. He emphasized that he represents the Board at those meetings. Mr. Tucker noted that the county has input into the VDOT six-year plan for primary and secondary roads, adding that what we are talking about here is an amount of money. We are not talking about how we are going to spend it. We will eventually, when we start talking about the CIP and get into that transportation funding. We know the state’s amount, and it keeps shrinking every year. Mr. Rooker commented that what VDOT is basically doing now is trying to leverage its money. They’re saying that localities that put their money into a project will get more money. If you can get private parties to donate right-of-way or give money to a project VDOT will give you more money, because they want to leverage their money. As a community, we have to decide whether or not we want to participate in some of this additional money that’s going to be made available because we’re willing to put up some money on our side of the table. Mr. Wyant added that often the locality only puts up 20 percent or so of the total. Mr. Bowerman said that he did not think it worked out that way. Mr. Rooker suggested that Butch Davies come to a meeting. Mr. Breeden pointed out that the $1.5 million is not incorporated into the capital numbers shown before or in the revised school CIP. Our proposed budget at this point does not anticipate doing anything related to this 1.5; this is just to show the Board what the impact of it was. Mr. Foley asked the Board to decide whether they wanted to show that $1.5 million, noting that $500,000 could be used from revenue sharing. Mr. Rooker said that he thought the county wanted to put $1 million into revenue sharing to make certain the county can take advantage of it. That is certainly the most effective expenditure of our money when we can get 100 percent match on it. He added that if they identify a project that requires $1 million to be put in to draw down a $1 million match, it’s doubtful that would all be spent in one year. Mr. Breeden asked the Board to consider how they might want to put the $1.5 million in. Mr. Rooker responded that the $1.5 million could be borrowed or funded from a reserve balance on a year to year basis. Mr. Breeden replied that if reserve balances are used, it’s going to be hard to come up with any money until the third year or so. Mr. Rooker said that it is difficult to always predict what future capital needs may be, and that affects the timeframe for projects coming online. Mr. Foley asked if the Board wanted to add $500,000 to revenue sharing, to maximize the new state money. Mr. Boyd asked if the Board had the capability to pull it back out if the match didn’t come through. Mr. Breeden replied that the county doesn’t spend that money until a project is identified and the match is secured. Mr. Tucker noted that the state has indicated $1 million would be available for match. Mr. Foley reported that the CIP is broken out so there are regional and local line items, noting that regional is unfunded except for studies. March 23, 2005 (Adjourned Meeting from March 21, 2005) (Page 4) Mr. Rooker mentioned that it is important that the $1 million additional get in to the local fund because it will likely be needed there. He commented that the Board has discussed the eastern connector and the bridge in Crozet, and would need to have money in the CIP to be able to accomplish those projects. Mr. Rooker said that the expenditure for school capital projects was higher in the next three to four years than in the prior CIP, because some big projects were eliminated but school expansion programs were accelerated. Mr. Boyd proposed that the schools be asked to give up their $300,000 to make the reserve $800,000. Mr. Rooker replied that the policy with schools has been the 60/40 sharing, and it’s not reasonable to tell them that has changed. It is reasonable to tell them that the Board wants to meet and go through the formula and talk about changing that formula in the future. Mr. Tucker pointed out that the funds were not anticipated, although the unwritten 60/40 policy has always been used. Mr. Bowerman mentioned that schools gave their employees a raise that general government employees did not see until mid-year. Mr. Rooker said that if revenues come to the county less than projected, which has occurred in the past, the schools would share in a decline in revenues as well. Mr. Boyd stated that the Board of Supervisors has taken reserve funds to overfund the 60/40. This Board has given extra money on a lot of occasions. Mr. Bowerman commented that the Board needs to discuss whether or not it wants to continue the 60/40 split. Mr. Wyant added that there needs to be a reason given for the change, also. Mr. Rooker noted that Mr. Tucker had previously distributed information about how other localities split with schools, but it wasn’t really very helpful because each situation differed. Mr. Bowerman said that a lot of money has been spent building schools. Ms. White pointed out that four or five years ago, the Board of Supervisors and School Board did visit the possibility of changing the formula, but the schools were not in support of the shift. Mr. Rooker asked why the surplus couldn’t just be put into the CIP. Ms. Thomas asked if the current budget assumes that some amount of money would be put into the CIP. Ms. White responded that the end-of-year money does not show in the reserve balance. Mr. Breeden noted that staff has no idea what it’s going to be. Mr. Rooker asked why the Board cannot allocate some money up front to the CIP. Mr. Breeden responded that the Board can; the capital policy already comes off the top before it is split. Mr. Rooker commented that the Board could make a strategic decision to allocate more money to CIP, which is used partly for schools anyway. Mr. Tucker stated that he had mentioned that possibility to Dr. Castner. Mr. Rooker suggested that most of the surplus be put into CIP, noting that he did not feel that schools or general government were starved for operating funds. He added that the budget would need more money in the CIP over the next five-year period for strategic initiatives to benefit the entire community. Mr. Tucker clarified that Mr. Rooker is referring to the $329,000 that would have gone to the schools. Ms. Thomas commented that that is not what the Board told the schools. Mr. Rooker responded that when he had his discussion with Gordon Walker, it was assumed there would be $70,000 based on all information available at that point. Mr. Rooker said that he believes the Board should put $300-$400,000 into the CIP, using the $209,000 in transfers and adding to that. Mr. Boyd asked what the CIP for the schools would be for next year. Staff told him the figure was around $9 million. Mr. Rooker pointed out that the current CIP is actually project-based, and suggested that the $209,000 be put in along with a few hundred thousand. Mr. Tucker explained that he was taking the $209,000 from the $329,000, leaving them $120,000. March 23, 2005 (Adjourned Meeting from March 21, 2005) (Page 5) Mr. Breeden further explained that the two-cent reduction resulted in the staff transferring $209,000 less to CIP. Mr. Tucker’s suggestion is staff replace that $209,000 and let the schools have the balance of it. Mr. Wyant said you’re just going to decrease that $209,000 so you’ll get a lesser amount when the 60/40 gets applied to it. Mr. Breeden stated that staff is taking their 60 percent of what was leftover, which was $329,000. This takes away $209,000 of that and transfers it to the CIP, leaving them $120,000. Mr. Rooker emphasized that the $209,000 came out of the CIP because of the lower tax rate, and more than half of the CIP projects over the next five years – more than 60 percent of them – are school projects. This is allocating some funds to replace the $209,000 that would have otherwise come out of the CIP budget. Mr. Boyd said that he hoped the Board would be looking to put more money into the CIP in the future also, and let the schools know that they would not be funding as many school projects as there are other priorities for the CIP funds. Mr. Tucker stated that after meeting with the schools, everyone agreed to have additional meetings in the summer and fall to be used as CIP work sessions. Mr. Dorrier said that they had also agreed to do some strategic planning. Mr. Breeden noted that the schools used a most of their fund balance to fund their budget, and now that balance is down to $1 million. He restated that the Board essentially just added $209,000 to the transfer to capital for projects, leaving $120,000 to go to the schools. Mr. Boyd asked if there would be a new category in the CIP for transportation. Mr. Tucker replied that it is already in there, broken down between local and regional projects. Mr. Foley pointed out where transportation and revenue-sharing items were in the budget, noting that $1 million would be added to transportation as the Board has discussed. He noted that the total $1.5 million would probably not be spent in the coming year. Mr. Rooker commented that regardless of where the money is, priority projects do end up getting funded. Mr. Foley said that the only item moved out of the CIP for budgeting purposes was the southern area park. He explained that Lane Auditorium renovations are budgeted at $1.1 million in 2006, and there is a contract ready to be signed if the Board wants to move forward with that; the second phase of renovations would happen the following year, and would include implementing plans on how the county building’s office space could best be used. Mr. Foley mentioned that the Stony Point request is not represented here, and staff will work with them to figure out what portion of their $359,000 request might be aided by the county. Mr. Tucker noted that this brings up a policy issue as to how the county wants to fund fire departments outside of personnel and equipment. Mr. Bowerman asked who owns the actual fire station buildings. Mr. Davis replied that the current ownership of each fire station varies. Mr. Foley interjected that the fire company owns their building, but if they stop providing fire service, then the county would assume ownership. He explained that new equipment is jointly titled between each fire company and the county. Mr. Dorrier asked about the cost of the McIntire building renovation. Staff responded that the county office building renovations would cost $1.1 million and $2.5 million in the next two years for Lane Auditorium and the rest of the building, respectively. Ms. Thomas said that she couldn’t recall approving plans for renovations and addition of the sally port next to the court. Mr. Foley indicated that county staff had to meet with the city Board of Architectural Review to develop new plans for that construction, which is scheduled for next year. He also pointed out that the port would help with the adult courts, but the juvenile court and the Levy building is where the Sheriff has experienced his biggest challenges in transporting prisoners. Mr. Wyant noted that this was discussed when Sheriff Robb came in to request additional personnel. Ms. Thomas said that if the sally port is built next year, that gives her more pause about adding to his staff, because his situation is going to get better. Mr. Breeden mentioned that Sheriff Robb wants staffing to start July 1, and the likelihood of the construction being completed this year is remote. Mr. Bowerman asked if the money was allocated for the Sheriff yet. Mr. Breeden said that it is March 23, 2005 (Adjourned Meeting from March 21, 2005) (Page 6) being held in contingency until the Board decides. Mr. Bowerman asked how important the $2.5 million county office building renovations are to the operation of departments in the building. Mr. Foley replied that they are only planning to meet 85 percent of identified need with the renovations. He thinks it’s been through a very objective process, and delaying it long-term could create some problems. Mr. Dorrier suggested pushing back that construction timeframe. Mr. Rooker replied that the renovations really do not impact the budget overall. Mr. Tucker pointed out that $100,000 in debt service costs could be saved if the project is done sooner. Ms. Thomas commented that it has to be done at some point. Mr. Rooker said that the $2.5 million is needed, and the Board spent a significant amount of time reviewing Lane Auditorium plans. Mr. Wyant replied that the auditorium is used very, very frequently. It is a good investment. Mr. Breeden said that the renovations would make it much more useful. Board members agreed to move ahead with the items as presented in the CIP. __________ Mr. Tucker asked the Board what should be taken to public hearing for the 2005-06 operating and capital budget, including the tax rate. Mr. Boyd stated that he is in favor of further lowering the tax rate, to 73 or 72 cents. He is really concerned about the impact of this budget on the taxpayers. Ms. Thomas said that she hasn’t heard any suggestions of where a couple million dollars can be taken out of this budget. Mr. Rooker commented that that would mean less transferred to CIP, at least. Mr. Boyd suggested having staff coming back with recommendations as where cuts could be made. Mr. Rooker said that the Board has been through the department budgets – department by department. Mr. Tucker has made his budget recommendations for them, so ultimately what would end up being cut are the CIP items just discussed. It also has an impact on our funding ability with respect to debt, etc., and potentially the AAA bond rating. Mr. Bowerman stated that he would love to reduce the tax rate more, but he cannot justify doing that against the need for the expenditures that the Board has just been through. Mr. Boyd said that staff could make a general cut across departments. Mr. Wyant stated that it is hard to estimate exact costs for some items from the Board’s perspective. Mr. Rooker commented that schools are the biggest ticket item in the budget, and emphasized that Albemarle County’s tax rate compares favorably to other communities. Albemarle has about the lowest tax rate in the state of any government of anywhere near our size. He said that land-use tax and transfers to the city really make the tax rate more like 54 cents. There isn’t anybody around that he knows of operating on a net 54-cent budget. Mr. Rooker noted that Albemarle is a place with a high quality of life where people are wanting more and more governmental services, not less and less. Mr. Wyant said that low-income families are those that need the tax relief. Board members agreed that more could be done under the tax relief provisions for elderly and handicapped. Ms. Thomas noted that there must be enough overall tax revenue in order to provide relief for those who need it. Mr. Rooker pointed out that the Board is talking about doubling what is currently allocated for tax relief, adding that he agrees with Mr. Wyant to help those who have limited income. Mr. Rooker added that people with a lot of land qualify for land-use. Ms. Thomas pointed out that there are steps that have to be taken to participate in land-use. Mr. Dorrier said that he agrees with a two-cent reduction, so that public safety personnel can be increased – police, fire and rescue – as well as continued strong support of schools. If the Board goes to a March 23, 2005 (Adjourned Meeting from March 21, 2005) (Page 7) three-cent reduction, it might be cutting into those. He added that he believes staff and the Board have done a good job in trimming excess in the budget, but any further excess is just not there. Mr. Rooker commented that the Board has to balance what it does with the policies they adopt, noting that one policy adopted was getting teachers into the top quartile of pay scales, costing over $4 million this year. He explained that the Board adopted policies to improve fire and rescue, and there is a big increase there as well as police, which the Board also agreed should be enhanced. The biggest way to affect this budget from a global perspective is to change policies. Mr. Wyant pointed out that certain items, such as teachers’ salaries, would not cause such a jump in terms of percentage of increase. Mr. Rooker said that Albemarle schools have proven to be good, while teachers have not been making any more than teachers in Fluvanna or Charlottesville. Mr. Bowerman stated that he was deeply involved with the volunteer fire companies restructuring a few years ago, and those firefighters are very satisfied with the support they have received from the county. He thinks the county has made extremely large strides to keeping a hybrid system which we could very easily destroy and lose our volunteers into a system where most of our hirees come from the volunteers now. The county gets very good fire protection for what it is paying for it, for a 744 square-mile county. He added that he believes the county has done an outstanding job with fire, rescue, and EMS. Mr. Wyant expressed concern about Stony Point’s capital needs request. Mr. Bowerman responded that Stony Point does not draw from a large area, and was down to about 18 people on their volunteer staff. He said that not every station has the same fundraising capability. Ms. Thomas said that Mr. Wyant’s point was not to set a precedent or policy that the Board would fund firehouse capital needs. Mr. Tucker stated that each fire company needs to be made aware that all the capital for their buildings will be their responsibility, with the county helping with equipment and operations costs. He suggested putting that into a policy so that it is clear to the fire stations. Mr. Wyant said that there needs to be more effort made to recruit volunteers. Mr. Boyd stated that county schools have chosen to spend their money on programs and administrative staff, and said that there are other school systems that have spent their money on classrooms and teachers. He emphasized that the county gets excellent returns for its investment in schools, but there are other schools that do it for less. Mr. Boyd also commented that perhaps Community Development growth could be slowed down somewhat. Mr. Rooker responded that the Board set a policy to invest in the Community Development department because many felt it was moving too slowly. He also said schools in comparative markets that spent less per pupil did not have the test results that Albemarle does, with consistent performance in the th 90 percentile. Mr. Rooker said that global changes to the budget must be done through policy change, and added that in order to trim by department, each must be reviewed. He noted that that departmental analysis has been done, such as for IT, and asked if perhaps an efficiency expert should be brought in to recommend if money could somehow be saved or not. Mr. Rooker commented that he does not think the Board wants to be in a position where our policies are not carried out. What we do want to do is make sure we’re operating efficiently and we’re delivering the top level governmental services at the best rate possible. Mr. Wyant mentioned the new schools communication position, and wondered if that position could be combined with Lee Catlin’s position. Mr. Rooker said that many of the county’s positions have been reviewed for efficiency and combination. Ms. Thomas pointed out that after taking a closer look she agrees that it made sense to separate the IT departments. Mr. Wyant commented that the last school planning was not done efficiently. Mr. Rooker said that he disagreed, as the schools that have been built lately were put in reasonable locations that paralleled county growth areas. Mr. Boyd commented that the School Board does not always operate with a “functional budget,” and that makes it difficult to see how expenses are itemized. In response to an earlier question about proportional spending, Mr. Breeden reported that in the general fund operation, about 25 percent of the general fund is non-salary items, including operating and minor capital expenses within departmental budgets. Mr. Rooker commented that what you’re seeing in these budget numbers is the realization of the March 23, 2005 (Adjourned Meeting from March 21, 2005) (Page 8) policy decisions that the Board has adopted along the way. Mr. Bowerman added that the Board just went through the budget, and this is what it ended up with. Mr. Dorrier asked if not doing the county office renovations would have a significant impact. Mr. Breeden replied that most of that money would be borrowed, and would not have a significant impact on the budget. He added that every one percent of departmental operations represents about $75,000. Mr. Boyd said that the highest expenses are often personnel, and perhaps that is where cuts need to be made. Mr. Rooker responded that if that is the case, you have to make the decision that we are not operating efficiently now. When he looks at the gross numbers – our tax rate, our net tax rate, etc. – compared to other counties, he does not see that we’re operating inefficiently on an aggregate basis. In fact, comparatively, county government is operating more efficiently than about any government in Virginia that he has looked at that delivers comparable services to its citizens. He added that the best way to decide if cuts could be made is to have someone come from the outside with expertise in a given area to review how efficiently that department is operating. Mr. Bowerman said that Mr. Tucker does that every year. Mr. Dorrier suggested having Board members do it. Mr. Rooker commented that he does not have sufficient background in each area to provide a meaningful review. Ms. Thomas noted that perhaps a departmental review might tell you more money needs to be spent, such as with the Police Department. She added that the recommendations that emerged from the Parks and Recreation Department review also ended up costing the county more money. Mr. Boyd mentioned a new school position entitled “Community Engagement Leadership” with a salary of $113,025 plus a $50,000 miscellaneous expense budget. That’s just one example. Mr. Rooker said that the Board cannot go through the School Board budget line-by-line at this point. Mr. Wyant mentioned his past experience with JLARC as a reviewing body to recommend efficiencies in the state workplace. They became more efficient from that kind of inquiry. Mr. Bowerman then moved to take the recommended capital and operating budgets for FY 2005- 06 to public hearing with a $0.74 per $100 of assessed value for the real property tax rate and $4.28 per $100 of assessed value for the personal property tax rate. Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion. Mr. Boyd asked about the E-911 additional $1 tax. Staff informed them that that would need to be brought back in detail at a later date. Mr. Boyd said that that fund should be self-sufficient. Board members and staff agreed, but expressed concern that state monies would be pulled out. Mr. Davis mentioned that there is a possibility within the next couple of years that the state will mandate that the rate be changed to five percent of the cost of the service. The proposal would eliminate a lot of separate local communication taxes to create one general revenue stream based on a five percent tax on all services. Mr. Boyd said he would vote against the motion because he believes the real estate tax rate should be $0.72 or $0.73 cents. Roll was then called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: Mr. Wyant and Mr. Boyd. __________ Mr. Tucker then reviewed items that the Board had raised previously as needing more discussion. He noted that the Board had recommended changing the budget for tax relief for the elderly and disabled, increasing that fund from $331,000 to $678,000. Mr. Tucker asked the Board if they would like to change the qualifying parameters for the program, including net worth, income, acreage, etc. He mentioned that the Board can also put a maximum dollar limit on the relief. In response to Mr. Boyd’s question about the $331,000, Mr. Breeden explained that that amount is in the current 2004-05 budget. Mr. Breeden said that staff is a couple months away from having the data available that shows the actual number of participants and the total cost. Mr. Rooker commented that providing tax relief in this way can focus your money to provide relief perhaps for the people who need it most. Mr. Davis noted that people can still apply. March 23, 2005 (Adjourned Meeting from March 21, 2005) (Page 9) Mr. Bowerman mentioned that the net worth limit excludes your home plus one acre. Mr. Rooker asked if it was possible to consider more acreage. It is not really fair to disqualify somebody who’s living in a house with three acres. Mr. Wyant said that he is concerned that people in the rural areas will be forced to sell off their land to meet taxes. Mr. Bowerman asked what the difference is between deferred and potential. Mr. Breeden explained that the deferral program would allow delay of tax payment, but that would have to be paid back. Mr. Davis said that the State Code allows for a combination of programs. Mr. Rooker mentioned that the county does not want to spend a lot of money administering the program. Mr. Tucker said that the Board has also expressed the need for more information about the stormwater program, CIP, CTS services, and commercial/residential tax base figures. He asked if there were any other matters they needed staff to review. Ms. Thomas stated that she would like further discussion as to whether a three percent increase for agencies was acceptable to them. Mr. Tucker replied that the city would also need to be involved in those discussions as the agencies serve both city and county. Mr. Wyant asked for further discussion of fire and rescue and how volunteers versus paid staff are assigned. Mr. Foley agreed to provide that information, along with maps of the service areas. Mr. Wyant said that he would like to have a policy in-hand as issues with fire and rescue service arise. _______________ Agenda Item No. 2. From the Board: Matters not Listed on the Agenda. Mr. Rooker stated that the next item for discussion was the Meadow Creek Parkway. He read parts of a letter from the city [that was never sent] to VDOT, and City Council asked at their Monday meeting for a joint meeting with the county to further discuss the parkway plans. Mr. Rooker said that he is expecting to hear from the Mayor soon on the meeting. Mr. Boyd said that he receives lots of questions and would like the Board to develop a policy on the Meadow Creek Parkway. Mr. Rooker mentioned that the Board’s policy has been to support the Meadow Creek Parkway, but it can only control the county portion of the project. Ms. Thomas mentioned that the county has hired its own consultants to work on the parkway design. She thinks that something you’ve spent your money on shows your intent. Mr. Rooker pointed out that in 1985 the county began allocating money for the project, which has experienced an accelerated cost schedule. He noted that in 2000, the county’s share of the parkway was estimated to cost $10 million; that estimate is now $20 million. The county has had to fund that inflationary growth. Mr. Rooker noted that the county’s total secondary road allocation this year is $3.7 million, with a quarter of that going to unpaved road projects. He said that issuing bonds for projects is more cost effective because the interest rates are so much lower. Mr. Wyant commented that the county is waiting for the city. Mr. Bowerman said that the design is not complete. Mr. Rooker stated that the right-of-ways, etc. are still being worked out. He mentioned that the th Commissioner of Transportation would be coming on April 18 at 9:00 a.m., and would be meeting with Butch Davies as well as local county and city officials. Mr. Rooker emphasized that they are working hard to get state and federal money for the interchanges, noting that the city would have to decide where to go with the project should the interchange funding not come through. Ms. Thomas said that some city officials who originally opposed the parkway have come around and are trying to explain to their constituents that the project has changed. Mr. Rooker pointed out that the county is committed to working with the city on a number of important projects that make the transportation network work. __________ Mr. Rooker said that Board members received letters regarding the water shortage, and wondered if it can be determined what group sent the letters, as they are identical. Mr. Tucker responded that Mr. Bill Brent, Executive Director of the Albemarle County Service March 23, 2005 (Adjourned Meeting from March 21, 2005) (Page 10) Authority, spoke to a group, and those attendees asked what they could do. The response was a suggestion to write letters. Mr. Rooker asked what the best response to the letters was, suggesting that someone go out and meet with the group. Mr. Tucker agreed to speak with Mr. Brent about the issue. Mr. Rooker emphasized the importance of providing adequate information to the public, suggesting that RWSA or the Albemarle County Service Authority send out information to the general public in water bills. Ms. Thomas noted that the article implied that the county would run out of water by Daily Progress 2008. Mr. Wyant mentioned that a letter from regulators seemed to attempt to box in where the county stands on the water supply situation. Mr. Rooker agreed that it did have that tone, but felt that meetings with regulators would involve open discussion about all options and opinions. He added that he had received a call from the Fluvanna Board of Supervisors chair, and requested that Albemarle meet with them and Louisa regarding plans to use the James for water in county growth areas such as Lake Monticello. They are committed to doing that, and he wants to understand whether we have an interest in potentially participating in that. Mr. Rooker said that the number of participating localities would determine the size of the pipeline. He mentioned that Tom Frederick and other city officials should attend, as well as county officials. Ms. Thomas said that the Planning District Commission is meeting next week, and she hopes to get some feedback from that group as to where they stand on the James River project. Mr. Tucker asked how the Board wanted to go about recommending new board members for the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, and wondered about involving the city. Mr. Rooker responded that staff should develop a proposal on it for the Board to consider. He noted that one scenario would be Fluvanna and Louisa managing the water line, with Albemarle as a customer; another option is the reverse. Mr. Rooker stated that one issue with the James is water quality, and he would like more solid information about the water quality. He said that he has his own well tested for 150 elements, and currently RWSA does not perform that level of testing on the water supply. Mr. Rooker emphasized the need for full-spectrum testing of the James River water that includes gathering the samples in a way that follows accepted protocols for gathering samples. He added that samples from South Fork and Ragged Mountain should also be collected. Ms. Thomas mentioned that the only time that the water from the James would be used is during severe drought, so the best testing sample would be taken during drought conditions. She noted that in 1965, Scottsville residents requested an alternative water source because use of the James was so unsatisfactory. Mr. Dorrier noted that Scottsville had a water tower that was filtered through sand. Mr. Wyant mentioned that water quality is diminished during drought, and water purification becomes more expensive. Mr. Rooker said that he is not aware of water authorities that are testing for PCB’s, etc. He does not think we want to end up adopting a water supply source and then finding out once we started sinking money into it that the water we’re going to get out of there has some quality issues. Mr. Tucker suggested speaking with Fluvanna about it. Mr. Rooker said that he mentioned quality to the Fluvanna Board Chair, and he did not have any comments, perhaps because they do not have many alternatives. Mr. Wyant emphasized the importance of testing on site and at the user end, as the supply can become contaminated in transport. Mr. Rooker stated that someone with expertise in sample collection needs to be involved. He agreed that water samples need to be collected from different source points such as South Fork and Ragged Mountain. Ms. Thomas said that the water would probably go to Observatory Hill, which usually treats water with less outside pollutants, noting that you can taste a difference in water depending on whether it came from an undeveloped or developed area. __________ Mr. Rooker reported that there is an effort to get Hillsdale Drive funded on an accelerated basis, based on tapping into an increased pot of money for public/private transportation act projects. He said that the total cost of Hillsdale is now estimated at $23 million, with two-thirds to three-fourths intended for right- of-way; private parties have agreed to donate a significant amount of right-of-way. Mr. Rooker said that Butch Davies and others feel this project would qualify as a PPTA project, and are trying to get Gary O’Connell of the city to devote some resources to it. He mentioned that this is entirely separate from other transportation projects, and there is money set aside for these. Mr. Rooker said that they are looking at the March 23, 2005 (Adjourned Meeting from March 21, 2005) (Page 11) Eastern Connector and Southern Parkway projects as possible revenue-sharing projects with the city, the county, and VDOT. Mr. Boyd expressed concern that funding might be diverted to Hillsdale and cause delays in Meadow Creek Parkway funding. Mr. Rooker pointed out that Meadow Creek is receiving secondary road funds, and no money is being put into Hillsdale right now, noting that those “pots of money” are different. He said that you can allocate secondary road funds to a project if you choose. Mr. Boyd asked if the projects would essentially compete against each other. Mr. Rooker responded that the county built its portion of Hillsdale years ago, and the city has the rest of it, although the county would like to see it completed. Mr. Tucker said that the PPTA projects would actually reduce the amount of competition for other road funding by providing an additional source. He mentioned that the resolution the city adopted on th Hillsdale is coming before the Board on April 6. __________ Mr. Dorrier mentioned that there is a Spanish-speaking translator, who works as a clerk, available in Jim Camblos’ office. _______________ Agenda Item No. 3. Adjourn. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:22 p.m. ________________________________________ Chairman Approved by the Board of County Supervisors Date: 07/13/2005 Initials: DBM