Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-03-19 adjMarch 19, 1997 (Adjourned-Afternoon Meeting) 00026~ (Page 1) An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on March 19, 1997, at 1:00 P.M., Room 235, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. This meeting was ad- journed from March 17, 1997. PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman (arrived at 1:06 p.m.), Ms. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Charles S. Martin, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Ms. Sally H. Thomas. ABSENT: Mr. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W. Davis and County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 1:04 p.m., by the Chairman, Ms. Humphris Agenda Item No. 2. WORK SESSION: 1997-98 COUNTY OPERATING BUDGET: School Division, GIS, Personnel Issues: School Division. Ms. Karen Powell, Chairman of the School Board, read into the record a prepared statement which is on file in the Clerk's Office. She offered to answer questions, and noted that School Board members, John Baker, Charles Ward and Madison Cummings were also present. (Note: Mr. Bowerman arrived at 1:06 p.m.) Ms. Thomas asked for an explanation of changes in personnel at the elementary school level. A number of citizens have expressed concern that staffing is being lost because of changes made at the Central Office level. It has been said that even if the FTE figures are identical for an elementary school (two in her district are Murray Elementary and Meriweither Lewis Elementary), there have been changes made that in essence have reduced staffing in those schools (the Murray principal said by a full FTE). Ms. Powell said that is due to the Differentiated Funding, and the three instruc- tional technologist positions currently at the Central Office. She asked staff to answer this question. Dr. Kevin Castner, Division Superintendent, said the decision was not made at the Central Office level. There were 23 principals who tried to solve this question together. They knew there would not be additional resources so they needed to decide how to better address student learning needs in the schools that have a greater diversity in their population. The principals developed the Differentiated Funding plan. In so doing, there were many compromises made. The principals, as a group, did not feel any of these changes would have a serious detrimental affect at one school at the expense of another. Anytime there is a change, and people have to make internal restructuring, it will cause some pain. This is being tried this year. There may need to be a change next year. This is not a way that can be continued to solve this problem. Dr. Castner said although he has heard some concerns from parents, the impact on the schools is not entirely without some gain. The technology change is an area that will affect the individual school in a positive way. The gifted and talented program is an effort already in the elementary schools, but instead of having five rotating positions, the individual school has ownership of that full-time position. That is not a negative, but an effort that was already in place. In the area in which the media specialist was standardized, they had to make a tough decision in a tight budget. Dr. Castner said the public in Albemarle County is hesitant to have the Schools take any step backward. Yet, if the School System does not address some of the learning needs for all of the children, then issues like the new SOL (Standards of Learning) testing will eventually affect graduation require- ments. It will create a higher passage rate by where a child lives in the County because you can't get the same learning outcomes with equal effort. Equity does not always mean equal. He believes funding has to be related to the types of learning needs at each individual school. This debate is healthy, and provides a checks and balance system that will keep the schools from reaching too far. It is an issue the principals will revisit. The only thing he wants to emphasis is that the decision was not made by the Central 000 64 March 19, 1997 (Adjourned-Afternoon Meeting) (page 2) Office, but the principals were asked to solve this problem. They did so considering their school's interests and also the 11,500 kids in Albemarle County schools. Ms. Thomas said she would like to have some flat number answers for the two schools she knows best. The principals of these schools feel they have actually lost positions. Dr. Castner said they are restructured positions. Ms. Thomas said the principals maintain they did not move the same number around in their school building, but they are actually getting fewer positions this coming year. Dr. Castner said that is not true. He thinks it is important to define this correctly. He said that what Ms. Thomas is hearing, and what he is saying, are both accurate depending on how it is defined. The FTE's at both of those schools have remained the same. Some of the expecta- tions in the FTE's are different, and there was some restructuring. That was what the principals asked for in the hold harmless sense. Ms. Thomas asked if these schools have the same number of FTE's, but next year they will have to pick up some new duties with the same number of students they had this year. Dr. Castner said not in the technical sense. He would like to point out that there was a lot of discussion during the redis- tricting process, and there was a group of parents who worked on the redis- tricting. It was the Superintendent's recommendation that the neighborhood school concept is a solid way of supporting schools and having parents involved. The Committee said, if we are not spending the money on transporta- tion, then we need to put additional support in those schools which have the greater needs. It can't be both ways. He has an obligation to the schools which have a greater diversity for learning, and that cannot happen unless there is a budget which is open-ended. The principals will monitor it this year, and they might have examples to give the School Board later. Ms. Thomas said she agrees with the philosophical underpinnings of this, but she wants to get the figures so that when she talks with her constituents she is not caught saying something that is not correct. She has seen the figures which show there are no changes in the FTE's but she had a principal say to her there were changes in the requirements that had the same effect as cutting an FTE. She wants to know if this technical position mentioned is essentially something that now each individual school will have to pick up that in this current year was being picked up by a position that was not a part of that FTE on the chart. Dr. Castner said he does not disagree with that interpretation, but he does not think the differentiated funding should "take the hit" for this. In a school, if the school population stayed the same, and if they had 11 classroom teachers last year, and because of the way the population is distributed, they has 12 the next year, that was not because of the differentiated funding. That was a school-based decision that had some repercussions that was part of differentiated funding. Going from 11 to 12 classroom teachers with no increase in the number of students attending the school was because of the way the school wanted to allocate the number of teachers in each grade level. It was a school-based management decision. Mr. Frank Morgan, Assistant Superintendent for Support Services, said in terms of the two schools mentioned, there was one additional requirement of the same number of FTE's. That was .2 for technology. That was the only requirement that was different from this year. He said if they had 17.7 FTE's, next year that same number would have to include .2, that is, one day a week, or 20 percent of the day, toward technology. That was the only requirement beyond current requirements. Interestingly, both schools have about the same enrollment (actually, one lost a little enrollment) but maintained the same staffing. Both schools also received, for the same number of students, additional money. Ms. Thomas said that is the sort of information she needed. Ms. Powell said that this year they had a Middle/High School Task Force to bring suggestions to the School Board. There will be an Elementary School Task Force which is to begin work in May to address some other areas. Ms. Thomas said she believes people think the School System should meet more than just minimum standards. When they find out that the minimum standards from the State are shockingly low, they are surprised. Ms. Humphris asked if other Board members had questions for Dr. Castner about the School budget. There were none. Ms. Thomas said there was $0.5 million that came to the School System last year in no particular category. She could not find that figure in these 000265 March 19, 1997 (Adjourned-Afternoon Meeting) (Page 3) budget papers, and wanted to be sure the School System was getting that same amount of money from the State again. Ms. Roxanne White, Assistant County Executive, said that is not a separate item in the budget, but is part of the base figure from the State. Ms. Thomas said she would be interested in having someone from the School System discuss the ideas they have put into practice to try to make some of their cost centers self-supporting, such as the Cafeterias preparing food for Parks and Recreation programs, or for Head Start programs taking place elsewhere. They do charge for this service and do get some income. Mr. Morgan said Ms. Pat Carlson is the Director of Food Services. She could not be present at this meeting today. About 18 months ago, she said there are wonderful facilities which are only used four to five hours each day. She felt the Schools could provide meals for places such as senior centers, lunches for Head Start, and some other programs that come through social service agencies. Mr. Morgan said he felt it was a good idea, and they should also be able to do better than just cover costs. He said Ms. Carlson has been able to provide for senior centers, for Head Start, for summer programs, even in the City, lunches and meals at a lower cost and of a higher quality than they were used to, and she has been able to use it as an income source for Food Services which is a completely self-sustaining program. They have been looking at expanding the program. There have been no negative comments made about the program; the food quality is very high. It has helped Ms. Carlson to hold down prices in the school cafeterias. Mr. Morgan said that Mr. Willie Smith, Transportation Director, recently said to him that Albemarle has a very good facility in vehicle maintenance. School systems in surrounding areas either have small garages, or they are sending their buses to Richmond for service, etc. He suggested looking at what Albemarle might provide to those systems on a paying basis which would generate income and also be less cost to those systems. Staff is in the process of investigating that idea. Ms. Powell said she is proud of the School staff. The Albemarle School System has been under a lot of scrutiny, and welcomes it. They welcome the accountability. They have spent a lot of time trying to help people under- stand different documents and some of the issues. Mr. Martin asked about the request for $85,000 for a Summer School Acceleration Project. Dr. Castner said students in Grades K - 8 who are failing to make adequate academic progress need extended focused instruction during the summer in order to maintain and increase essential skills in language arts and math. Current State reimbursement and local funding do not cover the cost of providing a quality program. One problem is that if the County does not provide transportation, the kids cannot attend summer school. There is interest in expanding the summer school to increase the present effort. This request is listed as an unfunded priority in the School Board's budget. Mr. Martin asked if the $85,000 is for a transportation issue. Dr. Castner said this extended learning program will provide from four to six weeks of focused academic instruction for identified students. Additional funds are needed to support the cost of the project, which is financed in part by State reimbursement for identified eligible students who are two or more grade levels behind in reading, have not passed the Literacy Passport Test, are in the lower quartile for achievement within their school. It is to cover a number of issues. Mr. Martin said specifically he would like to know where the summer programs are held now, what is the transportation issue now, and what does the $85,000 do over what is in effect now? Dr. Castner said they will be able to serve more students, and will be able to serve more students in all of the schools. Mr. Morgan said it is to provide more extensive services than they can provide now, and to provide transportation which they do not provide now because of the cost. They want to serve as many kids as possible. Mr. Martin asked where there are no summer programs now. Mr. Jackson Zimmerman, Director of Fiscal Services for the Schools, said one of the real issues now is with the fixed number of dollars which have remained constant over the past few years. Summer school has grown substantially, now having over 600 students. With the same amount of dollars for the program, they may have to tighten the requirements for attendance at summer school. Just March 19, 1997 (Adjourned-Afternoon Meeting) because of the financial restrictions on the program, they may not be able to serve all of the kids they would like to serve. They also may not be able to provide transportation to all of those kids. Some schools offer transporta- tion and some .schools do not. It depends on the financial ability of the school to provide that transportation. Dr. Castner said this is being subsidized by the local schools from their general funds which is a credit to those schools. It is also competing against textbooks and other supplies. When Yancey did their School Improve- ment Plan, this was the single most important intervention they wanted to expand. They wanted to expand the number of days, and they wanted to address an increased number of their students. They will not be able to support that beyond what was done last year. It is an area he is in favor of doing. Mr. Martin said he would like to have more information. He thinks the summer program is important and needs to be available to everyone who needs it. What he was trying to get an answer to, what do you have, where is it now, where is it that you do not have it, and where do you have transportation or not have transportation, and what will the $85,000 do in terms of having it for everyone who needs it? Mr. Morgan said it has been available either in the student's home school or one near by. It is a question of how many kids can be served based on the money. Location is not the issue, it is the number of kids who can be served with the money. Mr. Martin asked if the service includes transportation. Mr. Morgan said some schools were able to take some money from their own funds and some were not. Mr. Martin asked if the $85,000 can do that. Mr. Morgan said he will get Mr. Martin more details concerning his question.. Ms. Thomas said the Board heard a lot of comments at the public hearing that the School budget is inadequate, so the kids are being short-changed. Other people said presenting an unbalanced budget is not what the School Board is charged to do. This puts the Board in an impossible situation. She does not know what to say to her constituents except to say that this is the budget the School Board felt would be an adequate, which is what "maintenance of effort" is. She has been to the Superintendent's round tables, so she understands a lot of effort is going into educating students. She asked Ms. Powell to respond to the School Board's comfort level in the proposed budget. Ms. Powell said she mentioned in her statement that the School Board had significant debate on how to submit its budget. They wanted to be reasonable, but they may have been too conservative. They also wanted to be sensitive to the fact that the Supervisors are charged with finding resources to fund the needs of the schools. If the Supervisors cannot find the additional money to fund the Schools "unfunded priority list", the SchOol Board will cut whatever is necessary out of its budget. These are items which they believe help the education of students in the community. They would like to be able to provide the instructional technologist and still have adequate class sizes in art and music at the elementary level. The School Board knows the Supervisors are in the difficult position of having to decide what it will do. Mr. Martin said when he was a member of the School Board several years ago, one way it got into not having enough, textbooks and being behind in that area had to do with the feeling that textbooks were slowly becoming obsolete both in terms of content, and the feeling that computer technology was more useful for the price. He is often frustrated when trying to help his son with homework because he has no book to look at. He asked if school administration still thinks that being behind on textbooks is not that big of an issue because of technology. Dr. Castner said the Schools have gone from $250~000 in the budget this year, to $400,000 next year for textbooks. Over the next three or four years, they are going to try to catch up what they have not been able to keep up on the cycle. If they keep this item at $400,000, they will be able to catch up. However, there is an item on the "unfunded priority list" which will catch them up quicker. With the SOL and its causing unanticipated changes in needed resources for certain areas of the curriculum, they had to change plans for what they were going to purchase. He is concerned that the new standards for accreditation might require every child to take earth science. There would not be a book for every earth science student. They do not devalue the textbook although the information used through technology is supplementing that book. They have not backed away from March 19, 1997 (Adjourned-Afternoon Meeting) (Page 5) 00026] textbooks, but there are a lot of unfunded priorities competing for the same money. Ms. Powell said the SOL and the Standards of Accreditation have the School Board and staff trying to decide what the focus should be. A year or more ago when the SOL changed the reading levels to tie them to certain ages, reading materials for the appropriate reading levels for those children had to be adopted. Dr. Castner said he wanted to let the Supervisors know that next Monday the School Board will be made aware of the significant changes in the Stan- dards of Accreditation. These are the most major changes seen in Virginia in many years. By having exit tests that students have to pass before they graduate, and by needing 27 credits for an advanced diploma, with only a six- period day, there is a dilemma. Some of these things are positive in the overall, they will be passed to the school divisions and affect the next budget cycle. The Schools did not realize how much it would affect them because they only found out about it a day or two ago, and the period for testimony is only during the next 60 days. The time line on this suggests that on May 22 the State Board is going to adopt it. There are changes which require that every child needs algebra and geometry to graduate, and that will start next year with the incoming freshmen. He hopes the Supervisors will look at some of these issues and how they might affect some of the anticipated spinoffs which they will be talking about next year. He is concerned. Mr. Martin said he does not think that should be a problem because there was a promise by the new governor that there would be no unfunded mandates. Ms. Humphris said the Supervisors have already been warned that next year will be a difficult year financially with the opening of the new high school, and the operational costs that will need to be assumed, plus debt service. She assumes this will be a relatively unfunded mandate. Ms. Powell said the Schools are funded by the State directly in relation to its composite index. Ms. Humphris thanked the School Board for its budget presentation. GeoqraDhic information System. Current and Future Issues/Demonstration. Mr. Tucker introduced Mr. Tex Weaver, Planner, to make the presentation. Mr. Weaver said he will provide information on the County's GIS Implementation Plan which is funded through the current budget submittal, and is recommended for funding by the County Executive. Mr. Weaver said the GIS development process has been ongoing for a number of years beginning with the Building Locator System as the foundation for the GIS. For the past several years staff has been working with a vendor to implement the Enhanced 911 System. Staff, in the Fall of 1996, took over operational control of that building locator system. During transition, they established a GIS Development Team made up of County staff and other local agencies. The Team set out to determine the priorities of GIS applications in the County. They evaluated GIS software solutions in the existing community. They determined GIS capabilities and initiatives of other local agencies such as the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, the Albemarle County Service Authority, the City of Charlottesville, and the University of Vir- ginia. The idea to bring all of these local agencies into the County's decision-making was to essentially minimize cost and duplication of efforts, and to increase the potential for data sharing. Mr. Weaver said the next step in the process is to initiate a pilot process for GIS implementation. The pilot process is to verify costs and benefits, to test any alternatives, evaluate the hardware and software solutions and also to reduce the risks of underestimating costs, overstating benefits, and not meeting system requirements. Mr. Weaver outlined some of the existing mapping features which the County has in-house at this time associated with the building locator system. The existing mapping system includes a complete road network including road names. All state and private roads which service three or more houses have been named. All structure locations have been identified and mapped. Address information including addresses for individual structures, as well as address range information and road segments, has been collected. All water features have been captured. Political boundaries have been incorporated into the base mapping, as well as community and subdivision names. March 19, 1997 (Adjourned-Afternoon Meeting) (Page 6) ............. · 000265 Mr. Weaver showed an image of the digital file staff works with on a daily basis to update the building locator system as development occurs mn the County. He then showed a digital file of the Pantops area. Of the 139 tax maps that are maintained by staff, they chose Tax Maps 78 and 79 for the pilot program because of the diverse geography associated with these two maps. These differences in topography will help them test their methodology in tax mapping. Mr. Weaver said a component of the system in place at this time is digital aerial photography. The photography was completed in April, 1996 and staff is now receiving the final deliverables. The deliverables include Mylar for blueprint reproduction, Mylar prints of each tax map at 600 scale so it can be directly overlaid with the regular tax maps. Another component which is new is the digital files which can be used for reference on personal computers. This is of vital importance in updating the building locator in support of E-911. The digital photography is of a high accuracy so that as new development occurs, new road networks in subdivisions can be plotted, existing mapping can be corrected in order to have an overall base product which is very accurate. Mr. Weaver outlined some of the County's existing mapping capabilities. The magisterial districts have been mapped in a digital format using the building locator system which is in-house now. The fire-rescue response areas have been mapped. Mountain protection areas in support of the ordinance staff is currently working on have been mapped. Also, maps were produced for the Comprehensive Plan land use designations adopted in June, 1996. Community facilities were mapped: schools, parks, county buildings, police, fire and rescue. Mr. Weaver spoke about the storage and modification of digital mapping. He said it is a permanent storage mechanism. The maps are produced just one time in a digital format. As an example, he showed a map produced of open spaces which was adopted a couple of years ago. He said the map was done by hand by technicians and student interns in the graphics section of the Planning Department. Literally, all of the mapping was developed over a two- year time frame. It was done with colored markers, colored pencils, sticky tape, and highlighters. It is a very detailed map. If the map were taken to a meeting and a cup of coffee were spilled on it, or it was lost or stolen, it would have to be recreated by hand. The colors on the map are already fading. That is the current process. It would be easy to recreate the map in a digital format. That format would also provide the capability for on-demand reproduction. In a digital format, the maps can be reproduced at any scale, and in a minimum amount of time. Mr. Weaver said the Automated Parcel Mapping Process would be useful for a Comprehensive Plan amendment request. Changing the zoning category of a parcel on the map can be done as it occurs. It is as easy as modifying a word processing document. Mr. Weaver said that is where the County is at this time in the develop- ment of the building locator system. The tools are in place to manage, not only the Enhanced 911 system, but to catch up with technology and produce better products more efficiently as a result. Mr. Weaver outlined the current mapping process. The parcel maps begin with a base tax map based on 1937 aerial photography, so they are actually recreating the tax maps at this point in time. There was aerial photography in 1937 and someone annotated parcel boundaries, and the County has been using a manual method to update tax maps since then. He said with each step, there is the potential for human error. Each of these maps is manually scaled, and parcel boundaries are being altered, not only the ones that were there before, but also the new ones. This has been done in this manner since 1937. Mr. Weaver then went on to explain the automated parcel mapping process. One important component is that each parcel is linked to a data base, a computer automated mass appraisal system which is maintained by the Real Estate Office. Benefits of some of the automated parcel mapping benefits are: it is an accurate base for assessment functions, acreage, etc.; there is concise record of parcel history; there is a record of every subdivision that takes place so that subdivision can be queried in a data base; there would be the elimination of redundancy; there is the ability to manage increased demands as the County grows. There are 800+ new subdivisions (lots) on an March 19, 1997 (Adjourned-Afternoon Meeting) 000269 (Page 7) annual basis. As development continues to occur, there will be the tools in place to better manage that growth. It will provide increased efficiency in decision-making. Answers to many questions are just a "click" of a button away. Access to all the different data bases is available. (Note: Mr. Bowerman left the room at 2:30 p.m. and returned at 2:35 p.m.) Mr. Weaver outlined the current owner notification process the State requires when a parcel of land is requested to be developed and a public hearing is held. It is very labor intensive. Mr. Weaver said a GIS could complement the Fiscal Impact Model that will soon be put into operation. That Model provides hard fact output based on assumptions of development that will potentially occur in the County. It contains assumptions on impacts to budgeting, to taxes, number of school children, and those are detailed numbers as to the impacts. GIS could produce a spacial analysis by printing a map to show where the development occurs and what the impacts will be. It will play out a scenario and produce it graphi- cally. The GIS can also import quite a bit of Census Geography and perform those queries as well. An example would be spacial demographic analysis pertaining to age, race, income, poverty statistics, etc. A number of decisions are based on census data. Mr. Weaver said in closing that staff is talking about a phased GIS implementation plan approach using the building locator system as the founda- tion for the GIS. The core components are in place now. The County has the base mapping and the hardware necessary, and essentially the software neces- sary to support GIS implementation. Staff is working with other GIS users in the community to make sure that there is data sharing. There is no need to recreate something other agencies may already have in digital format. This is an opportunity to manage the information the County has much more efficiently, and staff resources as well. There will be increased efficiencies in data/map generation techniques, and in data/map retrieval for decision-making. Mr. Weaver then offered to answer questions. Ms. Humphris asked how staff deals with security. Mr. Weaver said it will be the same as it is for the current network environment through the Novell system which is in place, and certain people would have "read only" capabilities. They would not be able to modify data. Ms. Thomas asked if staff already has all of the census data. Mr. Weaver said staff does not, but that data is readily available. Ms. Thomas said she saw some maps a year or two ago which showed what are referred to as "pockets of poverty" by the Census Bureau. In her mind, she overlaid magisterial district lines on those maps and came to some interesting conclusions about why there are differences. She asked if systems are compatible so that is no problem. Mr. Weaver said that during meetings held recently between agencies, compatibility is a hot topic across different file formats. Making these comparisons is a good observation. It is esti- mated that about 80 percent of all decisions made in local government are based on geography. The land use decisions are based on maps. Distribution of resources, community facilities are located based on geography, the population served, etc. Mr. Perkins asked if the telephone companies, the electric power companies and the cable companies are a part of this system. Mr. Weaver said they use GIS technology for different purposes. Mr. Perkins asked if the County could request their information, Mr. Weaver said 'they are willing to work with the County. He has had numerous conversations with Virginia Power and the telephone companies that use this technology. Ms. Thomas said she is interested in trails feeling they are a resource which is endangered in the community. She asked the process for mapping trails, because they don't appear on existing maps now. Mr. Weaver said staff creates trails, roads, etc. on maps every day. Also, the aerial photography will often pick up old easements, abandoned roads, and that sort of thing. Any information is easy to add. Any variation of those things can be displayed. March 19, 1997 (Adjourned-Afternoon Meeting) (Page 8) 000; ?0 Mr. Weaver said the GPS (Global Positioning System) allows a user to go out in the field, and with a click of a button on a hand-held device determine the exact location of a point in the field. Surveyors are using this technol- ogy now, and are creating their subdivision plats, being able to delineate within centimeters an exact point on the map, enter that into their computer aided system and if all of the lot lines are exactly in the right location, the numbers are plugged into the County's computer system, and it is an exact fit. (Note: Mr. Martin left the room at 2:49 p.m.) Mr. Bowerman asked if staff feels aerials are better than a satellite. Mr. Weaver said that is changing. Last year, staff took a look at the availability of satellite imagery as compared to aerial photography. The resolution at that point was a little better with the aerial photography. What the satellites are able to capture on the earth's surface is astronomical and is becoming more commonplace. Aerial photographs are just like newspaper print broken up into little dots, called a raster image. Each little block is about three feet on the image. With the satellite imagery it is about 10 meters. The resolution is a little cleaner, and that is why staff opted to go with the aerial photography. The County has been on a five-year cycle for aerial photography since 1980. The next time it is done, staff will look at the potential for satellite imagery. It can be less expensive as well. (Note: Mr. Martin returned to the room at 2:51 p.m.) Ms. Thomas said she has heard that USGS does not archive its old maps. She asked the County's archives situation. Mr. Weaver said the digital imagery is archived on CD-ROM. Ms. Thomas said there will be changes made to it all the time. At what point will the changes be frozen? Mr. Weaver said it is a matter of just backing up the current file before making changes. There is then a "snapshot" of history. There is a lot of potential in the GIS system and staff is anxious to implement this technology. (Note: At 2:52 p.m. the Board recessed, and reconvened at 3:04 p.m.) FY 1997-98 Capital Budqet. Long Term Financial Projections. Mr. Tucker said Ms. Roxanne White will make a presentation concerning the Capital Improvement Program and some long-range trends. Ms. White used slides to make the presentation. She pointed out some of the changes in the CIP. The Rivanna Greenway project ($167,000) and the Route 250/Route 616 turn lane ($10,000) were moved to the new Tourism Fund, thereby reducing the General Fund transfer by $177,000. Ms. White said the other changes are in the School Division. Back in November there was a $4.3 million increase in funding of the new high school. The School Division changed their CIP to eliminate the PREP facility ($2.5 million), reduce the Henley project ($1.0 million), reduce technology funds for Burley Middle School ($225,000), and the Board of Supervisors asked the School Board to find an additional $500,000 in their budget to make up this shortfall. They did find that $500,000, but the Board also asked them to find $4.3 million in reductions in the CIP. That was done to keep them within the current debt service level. Several standards were set up in the Financial Policies, and debt service was still below those standards, but staff felt it was actually increasing the debt service payment, so they were asked to reduce it by the $4.3 million. They made the following changes: reduced Northern Elementary and deferred the project for one year ($1.7 million); reduced Red Hill Elementary project and deferred it for two years ($3.7 million); added renovation projects at Stony Point and Brownsville elementary schools ($0.42 million); added back Burley Middle School Technology Lab ($0.225 million); moved Stone Robinson Elementary and Walton Middle School projects forward one year. Ms. Thomas asked if those are long-term, intelligent decisions. Did someone asked them if this will cost more in year 10 than it would have if they had not made these decisions. Ms. White said that has actually been a decision of the School Board as to which project they wanted to reduce based on different factors. Mr. A1 Reaser said the elementary school projections have leveled off in year 1998. They thought it was appropriate to go from a 600-pupil northern elementary school to a 400-pupil. They will do what was done with the new March 19, 1997 (Adjourned-Afternoon Meeting) (Page 9) oooz?x high school and build the core for 600 pupils. With current projections, they did not see the need for the other 200 seats. They knew that this might depend on what happens on the UREF land, and that it might have to be put back into the plan. Concerning the Red Hill School reduction, growth has not occurred in that area. They do not anticipate that there will be the growth; it is a true reduction. They anticipate coming back at some point with a new southern elementary, but this project was out five or more years in the plan. Ms. White then showed slides illustrating Debt Service Ratios, and Five- Year Revenue Projections. She noted the following major impacts on revenues in the future: Monticello High School, $2.3 million in on-going operating costs; revised enrollment projections added 454 students over the next four years, 164 of them are expected in FY '99 based on a downward reassessment increase; mandated Virginia Retirement System COLA for the School Division, an additional $0.400 million annually; debt service with $0.500 million annual average increase; bus replacement and School Textbook Fund which is unfunded in FY 497 needs to be pushed forward to FY '99 at a cost of $0.383 million; technology support and training at a cost of $1.13 million over five years; and, paid firefighters at a cost of $1.7 million over five years. Not shown are additional costs for the new Jail, or the Juvenile Detention Facility. All of the Capital Improvement Projects are itemized and described in the operating budget. Mr. Perkins asked what changes are expected in the Revenue Sharing Agreement with the City. Ms. White said that figure goes up with the reas- sessment increases. That is actually one number that has come down a little bit since September because it reflects the downward trend in the reassess- ment. Ms. Thomas asked how good the County is in getting money in from the taxpayers. ' She asked if there is a high percentage of collections. Mr. Huff said it has been at about 98 percent the last couple of years. Ms. Thomas said she got out her old Fiscal Resource Advisory Committee Report dating back to 1989 to see if it had any words of wisdom, and it didn't. General Government Critical Issues. Mr. Tucker said this concludes the formal presentations to be made by staff today. Ms. Thomas indicated last week that she had a couple of items she would like for the Board to discuss further; the Discovery Museum and the Free Clinic. Ms. Thomas said as concerns the Free Clinic it is a small amount of money, so it almost becomes just symbolic. But, in this year's budget, nothing is just symbolic because every dollar counts a lot. She wondered why the Free Clinic was not given a three-percent increase since most of the local agencies did get that increase. She recognizes the argument that local government cannot pick up health care costs, but even with the Board's rather modest support of the Free Clinic, there is no dollar increase at all. Ms. White said the rational of the Budget Review Team was to look at it in a different philosophy than other programs. The Team looked at this as a contribution in recognition of the fact that the Free Clinic can use that money to leverage other moneys. Mr. Tucker said the City did not recommend an increase. Ms. White said the City is funding their contribution through a CDBG grant. Ms. Thomas asked about the VPI-SU Extension Agency. She said there was a proposal that they charge for the use of their rooms. She asked if this agency was reviewed by the Budget Review Team. Ms. White said they are reviewed by a Joint Staff Team which works with the City's budget office. Ms. Thomas said the D.A.R.E. Program, which the Sheriff's Department likes, has been shown nationally to not be effective. She wonders if anyone is looking at that program which is difficult to assess. Ms. Humphris said she also heard that report on the radio, but has seen nothing in writing. When she heard it, because she had been to so many D.A.R.E. graduations and seen the kids, it went through her mind that this is one of those things "where one year red wine is good for you, and the next year don't drink red wine." Mr. Martin said he does not believe that in this area there is any misinformation given out. He thinks the kind of misinformation they were talking about nationally was because a lot of the officers tend to try and Approved by the Be Date Initials 0002 March 19, 1997 (Adjourned-Afternoon Meeting) (Page 10) scare the kids. He has never been in a class where scare tactics were used. It is a pretty straight-forward program. Ms. Thomas said it is that kind of feedback she was looking for. Mr. Martin said he was not present at Monday's meeting, and would like to ask about the Reserve Fund. Mr. Tucker said that of the funds that were available, all of the Reserve Fund was placed in the Board's Reserve at about $1.1 million, and identified as being available to cover the Schools shortfall should this Board decide to approve that use. Staff understood it was to meet as closely as possible the shortfall in the Schools budget. Mr. Tucker said he knows there are two more work sessions scheduled, but it would be helpful to staff if the budget could be finalized next Monday. He must leave by 2:30 p.m. on Monday since he has both a Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority and a Rivanna Solid Waste Authority meeting that afternoon. He said if the Board members need additional information on any item, staff will provide that information upon request. Ms. Humphris asked if the Board should consider meeting at noon on Monday. Several Board members thought that was a good idea. Ms. Humphris said to make that change. Agenda Item No. 3. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Board. There were no other matters mentioned at this time. Agenda Item No. 4. Adjourn. With no further business to come before the Board, at 3:50 p.m., the meeting was adjourned