The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1996-03-13 adjMarch 13, 1996 (Adjourned Meeting) (.Page 1) 0002_ O An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on March 13, 1996, at 1:00 P.M., Room 241, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. This meeting was ad- journed from March 11, 1996. PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman (arrived at 1:04 p.m.), Ms. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr., Mr. Charles S. Martin (arrived at 1:06 p.m.), Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Ms. Sally H. Thomas. ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Deputy County Executive, Richard E. Huff, II, and Executive Assistant, Roxanne W. White. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 1:06 p.m., by the Chairman, Ms. Humphris. Agenda Item No. 2. WORK SESSION 1996-97 COUNTY BUDGET: PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENTS Police: Requested, $5,6668,906; recommended, $5,531,434. John F. Miller, Chief of Police, was present. Chief Miller began his presentation by thanking the County Executive for his recommendation relating to the police budget. He said a number of critical issues have been addressed, the first of which is staffing. The County Executive's budget has requested six additional police officers, all of whom would be assigned to the Patrol Division. This recommendation allows him to increase minimum staffing which is critical to his agency. He referred to discussions held over the last several years relating to the bench mark of 1.5 officers per thousand citizens. With the 87 officers currently employed, the ratio is 1.19 officers per thousand and with the six additional officers being recommended, the ratio will increase to 1.26 per thousand citizens. Virginia's average for 1995 was 2.14 officers per thousand and for 1995, the City's ratio was 2.4 officers per thousand. The increase in staffing is critical in several areas, because it increases officer safety. He noted that many calls for service in the County relate to domestic calls or alarms. He stated that particularly rural areas are being handled by one officer, which is undesirable. Officers initiate activities such as vehicle stops with multiple occupants, and when one officer is on the scene, sometimes it is several minutes before the second officer can arrive. In the past year his department has taken, as is the County's philosophy, a more active role in domestic violence cases. This active role has increased the officers' intervention in domestic violence. This year his department is taking part in a zero tolerance situation which means during an arrest if probable cause is present, an arrest will be mandatory. Domestic violence cases are dangerous for officers to handle, and when they do inter- vene, the need to have a second officer on the scene is critical. Increasing staffing is important to his department as related to the officers' response time throughout the County. He recalled that for several years a standard time of ten minutes has been set for emergency calls throughout the County. This goal has been reached within the urban area, but in the rural area, 16 minutes is the average emergency response time. Staffing is also needed because of the community policing program that his agency started approximately four years ago. With community policing, a number of new initiatives in the community have been taken on, such as developing partnerships which have been very successful over the last several years. With these partnerships comes an increase in workload because officers are being asked not only to be report takers and to investigate crimes, but they are now being asked to spend time with the community. These various partnerships work to identify problems and concerns, and they work with the community in identifying solutions and being part of the solutions for those concerns. There have been a number of community policing initiatives which his agency has started during the last couple of years such as the Citizen Police Academy, the Police Foundation and revitalization of the Neighborhood Watch. This past year, officers have been involved in new neighborhood teams currently working in the Esmont and Yancey areas. Ail of these activities are March 13, 1996 (Adjourned Meeting) 000~l (Page 2) added workloads for the officers, and they make the staffing issue that much more critical. He mentioned another critical area which is the half-time Property Clerk position. This position is needed because of the increased amount of evidence and property which has come into the agency, and it will enhance the opportu- nity for police officers to identify property and get it back to its rightful owners. It will also enhance the officers' ability to check in and check out evidence for court, and it will enhance his department's capability of controlling equipment and inventory withinits own agency. Chief Miller then mentioned another critical need which has been addressed by the County Executive's office, which is the replacement of the police fleet's vehicles. He has asked for 22 vehicles to be replaced this year, 20 of which are the full size police packages, and two are mid-size packages. With these six and one-half new positions being recommended, the Police Department's recommended budget is now slightly over $5,500,000. He then noted requests made but not funded, which he thinks are very important. The first one is a part-time temporary clerk's position. There are currently two and one-half secretary positions in his agency of 105 individuals, and the workload for the secretaries has been constantly increas- ing. He also had requested a records clerk position, and he mentioned that the amount of walk in traffic within the Police Department has increased, as well as the amount of requests the records clerks are being asked to do. He noted that both administrative requests and officers' requests are increasing steadily. He referred to other unfunded items relating to the Emergency Response Team, which includes both the Hostage Negotiation Team and the SWAT team. Equipment such as ballistic shields, incendiary devices and special training needs were requested but were unfunded. Ms. Thomas asked about the unfunded part-time clerk's position. Chief Miller responded that he would list the part-time clerk as the number one need, and the record clerk would be number two. As far as the specialized equipment is concerned, he will try to fund some of that out of this year's budget. Mr. Perkins inquired about the three officers who are receiving the federal funds. He asked how long this funding will last, and what will happen when it ends. Chief Miller answered that his department received a Universal Cops Program grant in January of this year. A selection process of new officers is currently being done, and by the end of June the three grant positions will be identified. Part of the stipulation with this grant is that these positions have to be used in the community policing initiative only. A community service detail is being formed to be made up of three police officers in uniform working the streets solely on community problems. He hopes the program will begin and that the policemen will be trained by the middle of the summer. He noted that the grant will last for three years. Mr. Martin referred to the positions funded last year. He asked how many of these positions were filled and continue to be full at this time. Chief Miller said currently there is a position that was supposed to be filled in January of this year, but a re-test had to be done. He also mentioned that, because of attrition, there is another unfilled position. He pointed out that an officer left the County Police Department and joined the State Police in November. Ms. Humphris asked if any of the Board members would like to put an item on the list for further discussion later. No one responded. Ms. Humphris then announced that she would like to put the Police Records Clerk and the temporary part-time clerical help on the list for further discussion. Mr. Martin suggested that the amount of $4,981 for the Emergency Response Team's training and equipment receive further discussion. Mr. Tucker said staff would probably recommend that most of the equip- ment be funded out of this current year's budget, if there is any carryover, since it is a one time expenditure. This can be clarified more at Monday's work session when such items are discussed. He also informed the Board members that they did not have to keep a tally of things being added for March 13, 1996 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 3) further discussion. The staff will re-figure all of these items for Monday's meeting. Ms. Thomas next wondered what will be the impact on Chief Miller's budget, if this Board does not approve the Sheriff's Deputy for Scottsville. She said Chief Miller should have been planning for this because the Supervi- sors indicated last year that they were going to give this position back to the Juvenile Domestic Relations Court, where it was promised. Chief Miller replied that based on his department's 1995 figures, his officers would have to pick up approximately 104 more calls for service. The agreement has been working out very well between the Sheriff's Department and the Police Depart- ment because a number of times, the Sheriff's Department was able to back up a County police officer, .even though it was outside of the town limits. However, he would not ask for a budget increase, based on this situation. He would hope with the six additional officers, it will allow his officers to be able to handle the calls within the town. Ms. Humphris asked Chief Miller to repeat the citizen/officer ratios. Chief Miller responded that with the current 87 officers, the ratio is 1.19 per thousand people, and with the six additional officers, the ratio would be 1.26 per thousand. There were no further questions for Chief Miller. Emergency Operations Center: Requested, $534,219; reconunended, $535,867. Wayne S. Campagna, Director, was present. Mr. Campagna noted that the Supervisors have received a recommendation for the County's share of the overall ECC budget which is jointly shared by the City of Charlottesville and the University of Virginia, as well as Albemarle County. He asked for the Board's support of the County Executive's recommendation to add three new communication officers to the current autho- rized level of staffing and to increase the Administrative Secretary's position from a half time to a full-time position. As a result of a recom- mended reorganization by the ECC Management Board, he is taking a new position within the organization, and he will be managing all projects associated with the initiatives of building a new Communications Center, as well as consider- ation of improving the radio system. He will also be responsible for the computer aided dispatch and the hiring of a new ECC Director. These costs would be offset by revenues generated by the current surcharge in place in Albemarle County. The City will be proposing its share to come from its E-911 surcharge, but the University does not have a surcharge. The University will be funding these costs from its own budget. The surcharge was originally put into place in~1991r~and State law directed that these monies could only be used to pay for all initial capital installation costs. As a result of legislation several years ago, this has been changed to allow the use of surcharge monies to be used for operational and personnel costs, which is the reason this proposal is being made in this fashion. He noted the County Executive's recommendation that the surcharge remain at $1.39, and he asked the Board members to support this recommenda- tion. The revenues need to be generated to offset these ongoing maintenance costs which will come as a result of installation of the new Enhanced 911 telephone system, as well as maintenance costs that will be associated with the other initiatives taking place in the future. These initiatives include construction of the new building, as well as computer aided dispatch and radio system costs, so it is going to be important to generate revenue through the surcharge. Since this mechanism is already in place, he strongly urged the Supervisors' support in maintaining it at this level. The County Executive's recommendation also supports the addition of two additional communication officers at some later date. It may be in this fiscal year or it could be deferred to the next fiscal year, but it is something that will need to be discussed further with the ECC Management Board as the next year progresses. The Supervisors need to understand that the Communications Center has reached a point where there has not been any increase in staff in over six years. It is clearly evident, by some of Chief Miller's discussion today, that the Police Department is growing. The workload grows with the number of officers who go out on the street, and radio traffic increases and calls for services increase each year in Albemarle County. This is also true for the City of Charlottesville and the University of Virginia. He noted that the Communications Center has been working in a March 13, 1996 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 4) 0002 3 single tier environment, and being multi-jurisdictional, there is an average of five communications personnel on the floor. He explained that all of these individuals perform not only the function of being a dispatcher, but they must also be a call taker, as well as operate the criminal information network computers. The workload is getting to the point where consideration needs to be given to moving from a single tier environment to a two tier environment so some of the call taking and dispatching functions can be separated. This will allow emergency responders in the field to have the full attention of the communications person at the radio, and when citizens are dialing 911, they will be able to get the full attention of the call taker taking the 911 phone call. He mentioned situations where a person dialing 911 may be an individual whose family member is having cardiac arrest, or there is a need for CPR instructions. ~ It can be dangerous if they are calling at a time when the radio traffic is busy, and the person taking the 911 call is trying to answer the radio and trying to provide the necessary pre-arrival instructions over the telephone at the same time. There is a question as to how effectively the service can be provided, when these types of situations arise. It is for these reasons, he is asking the Board of Supervisors' support for each of the recommendations. Mr. Huff commented that the staff fully supports the request for the additional positions. However, he wanted to clarify the recommendation to leave the telephone surcharge at $1.39 per extension. The last time the surcharge was discussed was in February, 1994, and at that time it was contemplated that the decision on reducing the surcharge, if necessary, would be reviewed in April, 1996. This was seen as a good opportunity to roll these two discussions into one, because the Board members had indicated they wanted to examine the situation with the maintenance projects. This was an opportu- nity to do two things. First, some manpower could be put where it is desper- ately needed. Secondly, with the Board's acknowledgment of leaving the surcharge at $1.39, when the projects to which Mr. Campagna referred are a little further along, the costs will be firmer. The computer aided dispatch system has not yet been procured, so it is not known what the maintenance cost of this will be. The building is not up, so these costs are not known, and there is still some difficulty as far as aligning the number of lines and getting them rectified with Sprint Centel. Since there are still some unknowns, this prompted the recommendation to leave the surcharge at $1.39 for now. The recommendation is that these positions be funded out of the sur- charge. As the process progresses, the maintenance costs will be known. A decision can then be made as far as what is required for maintenance of the system and the amount of revenues each month and whether this should go toward any of the other operating costs. He mentioned the existing General Fund support of the E-911 Center which is now permitted by law, and he noted that the appropriate change has been made to the County Code. He wanted to make it clear that the recommendation to leave the surcharge at $1.39 will continue to be reviewed as the project progresses with the understanding that these POsitions will be funded for now. However, when the point comes that the staff is ready to make a recommendation on the maintenance level for the system itself, the matter will be brought back to this Board. Fire/Rescue Division - JCFRA: Requested, $432,207; recommended, $321,851. Mr. Huff reported that Mr. Pumphrey is in training today, so he will present the Fire/Rescue Division's budget. The dollar increase in this budget is relatively small for next year, but he would briefly describe the impact this office is beginning to have in the community. The department is broken up into four basic divisions of management, training, prevention and volunteer services. Each one has a very focused mission in providing a service this County needs. Mr. Pumphrey has identified four major priorities in his office, and the expanded program requests reflect the overall sense that his office is being called on more and more to serve a much greater role in the community than it has in the past. The decision to move into fire arson investigations has proven to be extremely beneficial, and the County's conviction rate is much higher than the State's average. The support to the vo%unteers in that area has been very well received in that the volunteers do not have to stay behind after the call is over and do the full investigation. The volunteers can be released to go back to work, which is one of the major reasons for this March 13, 1996 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 5) support. However, as the volunteers become comfortable with the level of service this office provides, they continue to call on this office in the right situation. He noted that this service is not being abused, but it continues to grow. The second issue is fire prevention inspection. There are certain levels of inspection required by State Code, and a certain number of times per year are involved for such areas as day care, schools and health care facilities. Usually when violations are found they are safety related in nature. He pointed out that it is hard to measure the benefit of the inspection function until there is a disaster where something happens such as a panic bar being chained shut, etc. However, the addition of an inspector will allow the.inspections throughout the County to get on a more regular cycle. The target is to get all commercial and industrial facilities inspected once every two years and to meet the requirement by law of those needing more frequent inspections. He noted a $25,000 offset to this position, and he referred to a proposal which will be coming to this Board very soon, to begin charging for some of the inspections which are now provided free of charge. This is an anomaly Statewide to be providing these kinds of inspections. These inspections involve burn permits, as well as some of commercial and industrial kinds of inspections. There is manpower involved, and a number of trips are required to manage this situation. The third major issue is in the area of additional funds to repair and maintain the Joint City/County Fire Training Facility. This is a facility getting a tremendous amount of use from the volunteers, and it has not received the kind of maintenance attention that has been needed. Next, he talked about the recommendation for career personnel to man the aerial truck. He had hoped to have a consensus on how to go about providing aerial service to the County at the time of this discussion. However, he requested that the Board set aside funds of $74,492, which were earmarked for the career personnel in the budget, and revisit this item once a decision has been made. There has been an offer by the Seminole Trail Fire Department to house the aerial truck and provide volunteer manpower for it in the evenings and on weekends. They cannot provide this service in the day time. Day time support is still being examined with the volunteers, and he hopes to have a recommendation soon. The recommendation will come to this Board for approval, but the funds have been set aside so they will be in place when the decision is made. These people can then be brought on board later in the year. Mr. Marshall inquired if the amount of $74,492 includes more than salaries for the career personnel. Mr. Huff replied that this figure includes salaries, start up costs, uniforms, and operating supplies, It is envisioned that these people will also respond to medical calls, so there are medical supplies involved. Mr. Pumphrey maylhave more to say about the workload in his office, and he noted Mr. Pumphrey's request for an additional training officer position. Mr. Huff said this is currently being handled with a part time person in the evenings to try to coordinate the training being provided to the volunteers. This training is largely associated with the fire section since TJEMS provides the bulk of the medical training for emergency services. The County Executive's office supports this request, and although it cannot be funded this time, there is clearly a training need. This training can be provided for another year with a part time person, but it is an area that continues to grow. As the State's requirements for training continue to increase the number of hours, so does the record keeping and the number of classes that have to be offered. He also reported that the volunteers have requested that the classes be held in their departments, rather than centrally, so they don't have to have 20 to 30 minute commute times each way in addition to their class time. The training person coordinates everything, gets out notices, arranges instructors and, at times, even teaches the classes. Next, Mr. Huff remarked that he would like to speak to the Jefferson Country Fire and Rescue Association's budget, which goes'hand in hand with the Fire/Rescue budget. The County Executive's recommendation for Jefferson Country was to provide a three percent operating increase to its budget, and provide the additional funds requested for upkeep to the training facility. An expanded request has been funded of $28,080 to increase the recruitment and retention funds. There were no further comments. March 13, 1996 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 6) 000215 Joint Security Complex: Requested, $193,830; recommended, $193,830. Albert A. Tumminia, Jail Administrator, was present. Mr. Tumminia presented his budget and asked the Supervisors to support the County Executive's recommendation for level funding for the jail, which would be to retain, the same funds for FY 1996-97, as were available for FY 1995-96. After evaluating his budget, he feels that the revenues generated by both the State, as well as keeping Federal prisoners, will allow the jail to operate at the same level as in the past. He then referred to the two big increases requested in his budget which are for in house services and food costs. He has tried to maintain level funding in both~of these areas for approximately two or three years. However, with the increase in population and with inflation, it is necessary to increase in these two areas. In most other areas, the increases are minimal, and there will be no additional requests for vehicles or'large items. As a result, he feels the jail can function at level funding. Ms. Thomas wondered why the federal days for prisoners are decreasing instead of increasing. Mr. Tumminia responded that he has tried to get an explanation, but federal officials have only said they are making less arrests and bringing less to local jails. Federal officials also indicate that this is consistent with facilities in other areas. However, they pointed out that they have an obligation to maintain a level of federal inmates in jails where there are contractual agreements before they fill other jails. Ms. Humphris noted that there is an agreement pending relating to federal prisoners, but it has not been decided if this is in the best interest of all involved. It is uncertain whether the advantages of ensuring federal prisoners at a certain level outweighs the disadvantages it brings with it. The way the funding will have to be used, as well as the effect it will have on the municipal bond indebtedness, are complex issues, and local officials will have to seek the advice of lawyers on this matter. Mr. Marshall inquired about the $11,000 item for books and subscriptions. Mr. Tumminia answered that this item involves any publication that comes into the jail including law books and professional periodicals, etc. Mr. Marshall asked who uses these books. Ms. Humphris replied that the inmates have a law library which is provided for them. When she saw this budget item, she assumed it involved an addition to the law library, since there have been a lot of requests for updating it. Mr. Tumminia pointed out that, by law, the law library has to be maintained and kept up-to-date. Ms. Humphris stated that these are expensive books. Inspections: Requested, $634,252; recommended, $635,202. Jay Schlothauer, Deputy Director, was present. Mr. Schlothauer stated that he would like to discuss the Inspections Department's operations and the current budget request. First, he will give a brief paraphrasing of the Inspections Department's mission. Secondly, he will give a description of how the Building Code works in Albemarle County, and thirdly, he will discuss how the three main components of the Inspections Department work together to effectively enforce the Code. These three components are: Customer Reception and Permit Review Coordination; Office Technical Review of Permit Application Packages; and Field Inspections. He then note how this year's budget proposal affects the support of these activities. The Inspections Department's mission is to ensure the safety of all new construction, including residential and commercial, as w~ll as public and private buildings. This is accomplished through the enforcement of the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code. This Code is made up of the BOCA Codes, plumbing, mechanical and building, the National Electrical Code, the one and two family dwelling code and all of the related references. The Commonwealth of Virginia did not write a technical building code, but it borrowed the national codes. The Uniform Statewide Building Code is the only building code in Virginia, and Albemarle County is required to enforce it. The County is also required to designate someone as the building official, and currently the Director of Inspections serves in this capacity. The Albemarle County Inspections Department achieves Code enforcement through the simultaneous workings of the three main components. The Customer March 13, 1996 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 7) Reception and Permit Review Coordination is the taking of a permit, determining who in the County has to see it and maintaining the process for routing the package through the system. The Office Technical Review of Permit Application Packages involves review of the plans and specifications for Code compliance. It is the effort of his department to catch critical issues on paper rather than after a potential mistake has been built in the field. Although this function is the primary job of the Plans Ekaminer, she has immediate access to the entire field inspection, as well as administration. Field inspections are performed by a staff of eight inspectors which are divided to provide specialized inspections in commercial and residential buildings. The commercial inspectors are further divided into the four main areas of building, electrical, plumbing and mechanical inspections. The residential inspectors are trained to inspect all aspects of residential construction, and the commercial inspectors are cross trained to effectively cover for each other as needed. He referred to FY 1994-95 when there were 1,960 building permits processed, as well as 2,390 electrical permits, 1,700 plumbing permits and 1,650 mechanical permits. However, in his opinion, the budget proposal was affected very gently by these activities. He asked the Supervisors to notice that his department is attempting to maintain a status quo in which the operating budget is below the baseline target figure. This is because it has been determined that currently expertise and efficiency in the Inspections Department's jobs can be most effectively maintained through training and communication, both of which are targeted as areas of concentration and both of which are fairly inexpensive. He said very effective technical training can be received through the BOCA organization for a relatively low cost of $50 per person per seminar and through the State Code Office for free. Also, the County has developed wonderful training opportunities along the lines of teamwork, professional development and computer skills, also for free. His department plans to take full advantage of these resources. He referred to communication as a term he is using to include teaming and improving the awareness of what each person is doing. The Inspections Department is full of intelligent, highly skilled people, and actively encouraging them to share their skills, knowledge and energy is what he is calling communication. He is convinced that job performance and customer service will only benefit from improvements along these lines. This item is very inexpensive, although it takes time to learn the necessary teaming skills, as well as time to sit in the office and meet on the job site to share information. Time is money, but it is difficult to attach a dollar figure to such efforts. He then encouraged the Supervisors to look favorably on the Inspections Department budget request. He asked them, as they proceed with such consideration, to be reminded of the importance of his department's mission, the responsibility to enforce the Code, the operational programs of the department and the modesty of the budget request. Ms. Thomas noted the percentage decrease of the Inspections Department budget, and said this is to be commended. Mr. Tucker stated that Mr. Jesse Hurt, the Director, would be retiring as of July 1, 1996, and this will be the last budget he will bring before this Board. Mr. Hurt will be missed, because he has been a big help and a part of this organization for a long time. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENTS Engineering: Requested, $826,532; recommended, $828,732. Jo M. Higgins, Director, was present. Ms. Jo Higgins remarked that the Engineering Department's portion of the County budget is self-explanatory. However, she mentioned two items that might be different and may not have been clearly mentioned in budget discussions. She referred to $4,000 which had been dropped from the budget for several years, but it was added back for the Scottsville Pumping Station and Dam Activity. This is for a cost share of up to 50 percent of money which has actually been spent with invoices submitted. She also mentioned that the Keene Landfill Groundwater Program is a significant item, but it has been kept fairly constant. She said Staff Services has successfully been integrated, and is benefiting from some of the flexibility. She added that there have been some recent occasions to make use of this flexibility. March 13, 1996 (Adjourned Meeting) 000~7 (Page 8) Solid Waste/Recycling: Requested, $291,393; recommended, $291,313. Ms. Higgins said solid waste and recyclingis probably the single highest cost item. The Keene project is included, as well as a half-time recycling coordinator. Also included and shown in the breakdown is a $15,000 line item for tipping fees relating to some of the illegal dumping activities which, hopefully, will continue to be funded next year. Previously, it was only funded once, and the funding was used over more than one year. However, it is being proposed to keep the item at a $15,000 level. She said with increased demands and sensitivity to this issue, it is expected the money will be well spent. Water Resources Management: Requested, $51,749; recommended, $51,749. Ms. Higgins first distributed a handout to the Board members. A Water Resources Manager was previously integrated into the Engineering Department several years ago. She thinks this has been highly successful as far as being a component of the Engineering Department. Recently the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority Board went through its budget cycle and asked what this position entails, since Rivanna is paying for the position. David Hirschman was asked by Art Petrini to go to the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority Board to let those Board members know what was accomplished over the year. She was really surprised at the positive effect Mr. Hirschman's presence has had in dealing with the City, County and University, and she expects, when this matter goes to the Rivanna Board, it should be considered very favorably. She was just letting the Supervisors know that this position is fully funded through the Rivanna Board, so the position will be examined through Rivanna's budgetary process. Ms. Thomas asked Ms. Higgins to repeat her comments about Mr. Hirschman's position. She asked if she is saying this item is in the County's budget, but it is funded totally through the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority Board. Ms. Higgins replied that this is correct. She said it is billed directly to the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, but the position is actually in the County.~ Sometimes the issue as to whether Mr. Hirschman is working more for the County is mentioned, and the balance seems uneven. However, the position is more visible in the City because of the many things going on there currently. Mr. Hirschman is working with the focus group on the Consolidated Water Ordinance for the City, County and University. By carrying this forward it is hoped that water quality will be effected in the community rather than water quality in just the County or City, etc. Ms. Thomas remarked that there are lots of citizens who call on the Water Resources Manager and appreciate so much what he does and his willingness to explain at a layman's level things that a~e going on. .She often gets questions as to whether he is being paid enough. Ms. Higgins answered that she is only holding off the demands to increase this role in her department because of a $51,000 grant Mr. Hirschman is responsible for getting which dealt with education and marking storm sewers in the City, County and University area. She probably gets more calls about items relating to the Water Resources Manager's position than anything else. She went on to say people want to know things such as what is happening with a certain river, the watershed, runoff control or its interpretation. Me is very, very busy, and his position is stretched as far as possible. Staff Services: Requested, $969,697; recommended, $939,126. Ms. Higgins said there are no surprises, although she pointed out some repairs and refurbishments which really became apparent last fall. She mentioned the County Office renovations where many times when some of the areas are updated or relocated, it is found that there is carpeting and painting needed, as well as bad spots where wear and tear have accumulated over time. She is making an attempt to get such items in more of a level funding position. She next referred to an additional inspector/public works crew member position which was unfunded. She was not here to argue this point, but it is a need that will probably be better established over the next year. Her office has to be responsive to complaints about stormwater, illegal dumping, as well as to anything else related to an immediate response from a public works crew. She gave an example that sometimes the person responsible for the March 13, 1996 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 9) 0002:18 County's signs has to be pulled off of his job to go pick up dead animals. Her office has to consider the balance and the impact of.being responsive to citizens' complaints. Ms. Thomas mentioned Page 135 where it refers to critical issues such as the management of the $35,000,000 in the School Capital Improvements Program projects scheduled to come on line over the next three years. There is a real concern that the County has paid for and received a good plan on how to proceed, but someone is needed very specifically to watch all of this. There will be some decisions which will need to be made a bit differently than before. She asked if this will require another person or how will it be handled. Ms. Higgins replied that last year such a person was requested, and the position was funded half year to begin January 1. The position has been advertised, and the deadline has passed, but the person has not yet been hired. She also noted a transition as a result of one of the project managers accepting the position of Chief of Staff Services. The increasing complexity of projects always makes the owner response more critical because a contract is a two way street. It can be very difficult if the answers are not provided in the amount of time the contract requires, and the contract is delayed. She went on to say it is a very challenging future with nine projects in progress, and she hopes they will be covered adequately. Her office is gearing up for just that purpose. Her office provides the owner representation more through final documents than in the pre-design. She noted that A1 Reaser, Director of Building Services, assists her office quite a bit in dealing with the users and scheduling high level administrators to coordinate with the architects. The architects will only perform as well as the County officials demand they perform, but this is a very demanding County. The County has a very successful team, and she is hoping all of these projects can be brought in within the budget and on time. She then mentioned a down side where the numbers and bids seen this year are very high, and they are more than anticipated. She is watching some of the other bid openings across the State to see what will happen, but for Western Albemarle High School, the bid was much over the cost estimate. She also understands the local concrete companies are sending out notices on April 1 indicating a five percent increase just on concrete prices. Contractors are trying to recover what was lost at other times, and she does not know how this will affect the projects. The County has worked well before with five percent contingencies. She pointed out that she has bragged about bringing in the projects within the contingencies, and she actually redistributed them and did not have to come back to the Board for more funds. She is fearful, though, that there will not be enough money to cover the Western Albemarle High School project. The bid opening for this project went to the School Board Monday night. However, there is a serious shortfall on this projeCt, so the scope will have to be cut, or sources of additional funding will have to be examined. Mr. Marshall inquired as to who is responsible for inspecting the equipment, etc., that goes into this project. He recalled that at Walton Middle School, there were some air conditioners that did not have UL seals on them. (Mr. Bowerman left at 1:58 p.m.) Ms. Higgins responded that such inspections are done with a contract which has been put out to bid, and the County's inspector has to make sure the County is getting its money's worth. The bid document specifies that equipment has to meet code, and it has to have the UL label on it, or there has to be another way to meet this requirement. She said the BOCA Code inspections are done by the County Inspections Department, and the County oversees the inspections from more of a projects management perspective. If things are not done according to contract, the County gets a credit, and if there is a change, there is a change order. In a low bidder scenario, there are gray areas where the contractor notes that a contract doesn't specify certain things, and he is being asked to do things that are not clearly in his document. The County staff's job is to make sure the documents are of the highest quality possible. It is not a double inspection, because one is strictly a Code inspection, and the other is done by an owner's representative, who used to be called Clerk of the Works. She emphasized that the County does not provide full on time inspection to any of the jobs, but there is project management and regular job meetings. On a job as complex as March 13, 1996 (Adjourned Meeting) 000219 the high school project, consideration will probably be given to a full-time effort or two half time combinations to maintain this .level of activity. Ms. Thomas said it was pointed out to her that the way the private pay scale is set up, the incentives are not there for people such as architects and engineers to follow the types of specifications found in projects such as the high school. Since the incentives are not there, someone in the County has to be responsible for these projects. Since this is the direction the County has to go in all of the decisions, the responsibility will have to rest with Ms. Higgins' staff. Ms. Higgins replied that it always costs more to design for the optimum, and a big example of this was seen in the Sustainability Report.~ It is simple to specify what is easy and not look at exactly how much tonnage is needed, for example, to air condition a room. If someone is building his own house, it takes a lot more work to get the best deal on all the features. The Engineering staff is stressing wi~h all of the architects a value engineering perspective. A little more may be paid in design fees, but it takes more time to design something to the optimum than it takes to pull something out of a catalog, put it on a specifications sheet and put it out to bid. It is also more time consuming to administer such a contract. The shop drawings for such a project will probably be much more extensive and different in that they have to show how they apply to a particular project. She went on to say state of the shelf is what will be in place, but it will be a unique combination. (Mr. Bowerman returned at 2:01 p.m.) SOCIAL SERVICES/PARKS & RECREATION Social Services: Requested, $4,013,783; recommended, $3,960,228. Karen L. Morris, Director, was present. Ms. Morris explained the Social Services Department's position request as recommended by the County Executive and how critical issues in foster care, welfare.reform, child protective services, as well as reporting and data gathering are affected by this request. She then noted significant increases in the foster care case loads for more than a year. The requested benefits social worker will be handling this portion of the foster care case load that is partially funded by federal funds, but there are some more eligibility requirements attached to it. By having this type of position, each child will be covered in all respects by one worker instead of two which will also ease the case load increases. She then referred to the social worker position for the Tri-Area Foster Family (TAFF) program. This position was requested for much the same reason, because this program has increased case loads and a demand for more foster parents. The position~carries the added benefit of enhanced federal funding. She next referred to the requested Employment Resources Support Team Coordinator who will be heavily involved in welfare reform, particularly in work site development. This will also be a cooperative effort with Charlottesville. She then mentioned the position of a schools based social worker which she sees as a beginning to the development of community based teams in the County. It is also the first real effort to work collaboratively with the schools. This position's emphasis will be toward the younger school age child who is at risk of abuse and neglect. One position not funded in the County Executive's budget is that of a Management Analyst. In the past, priority has always been given to staffing requests that provide direct line service. This has probably been done too long, because the need to better inform and educate the public has caught up, and a better job needs to be done of tracking clients and services and predicting trends. The need for general data collection has exploded, and the staff is not adequate to help develop local automated programs or provide more adequate reports. She believes the County Executive thought a support staff reorganization plan currently being developed might free up a position which could be reclassified. However, she currently does not think this is going to happen, and she asked the Supervisors for further consideration of this request. She told the Board members that if they adopt the County Executive's recommendations, and at least consider the Management Analyst's position, she can move ahead in addressing the critical issues and assist the County in furthering one of its goals. March 13, 1996 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 11) 000 20 Mr. Marshall commented that he had thought the Management Analyst's position might save the County enough money to pay for the position, if the person is really good at screening people, etc. Ms. Morris replied that this is possible, because the position could also examine other sources of funding. Mr. Marshall remarked that the County is going to lose a lot of these funds. Ms. Morris concurred. Ms. Humphris asked if the Management Analyst would be receiving $31,507 in salary or $34,232. The net local cost of this position is shown as $34,232 on Page 158 in the explanation of federal funds. However, the number shown in the budget is $31,507. Ms. Morris replied that the correct local share is $31,507. Ms. Thomas referred to a conversation she had with some Walton Middle School teachers. It was their view that the salary of $28,216 for the family services school social worker position would have to be supplemented at the school based level, and the salary would have to come out of the school building's budget. Ms. Morris responded that the proposal was to have a shared cost with the schools, and three school areas had been targeted as high complaint schools. She explained that school areas would include a middle school, as well as the supporting elementary school. The position was proposed in several different ways. However, the position is needed, regardless. If the schools won't or can't participate in the funding of the position, she would ask the County to fund one position for the full cost so the same process of working with the schools can begin. The thinking was that if some schools had some funds to supplement the position, perhaps more than one position could be created, with more schools being served. This would be a truly collaborative effort, with both being involved in the plan and sharing the funding. Hopefully, the program can be expanded in years to come to create a true community team in those communities. Ms. Thomas commented that since the school budgets are level funded, perhaps everyone needs to be aware that this would create a drain on an individual school's budget. Yet, she noted that the Walton school teachers were very enthusiastic about the position. Ms. Morris responded that some schools have reported that they have some funds which could be used for such a position. Mr. Marshall reported that 25 percent of the children at Walton are at risk. He wondered what has to be done to make sure this position is funded for Walton. Perhaps this question should be asked of the School Board. Ms. Morris stated that the schools have some money termed as at risk money, and the ability is there to use this money however they wish with their own school. Ms. Thomas mentioned that this Board has just heard from one school which is using a lot more than the money they have as at risk funds. Mr. Marshall said this is his point. He went on to say with 25 percent of the children at Walton School are at risk, this position should not be funded based on pupil enrollment County-wide. There is a high ratio of at risk students in Walton School as opposed to the other middle schools, which do not have such a high ratio. A position is needed at Walton that is not needed at some of the other schools, but he does not think the Board of Supervisors has the authority to dictate this. The School Board will have to make this decision. Mr. Tucker remarked that Ms. Morris is attempting to get this share of funding, and the schools will have to provide theirs. Ms. Thomas reiterated that the teachers to whom she spoke were enthusiastic about the position, and they were not arguing against it. She wanted to get a clear indication of how it was funded, and perhaps it is something this Board should talk about to the School Board. Mr. Marshall referred to the Management Analyst position, again, and he emphasized that it will be money well spent and money will be saved. Ms. Humphris concurred. She said this position will be put on the list for discussion. Parks and Recreation: Requested, $1,063,039; recommended, $1,060,466. Patrick K. Mullaney, Director, was present. Mr. Mullaney summarized the budget for the Parks and Recreation Department. There are no big changes in his figures, so he would talk about March 13, 1996 (Adjourned Meeting)- (Page 12 ) .' 00022 how he has tried to deal with some issues in this budget. He mentioned three critical issues which relate to the demand for athletic fields space, improving the quality of the County's parks and the situation with the Teen Center. : More fields are needed and the condition of the existing fields need to be improved. There are hardly ever complaints about the routine maintenance of the regular parks, but complaints are received about the condition of the fields at the schools, particularly the Little League fields where the children are playing baseball. There are two piecesof equipment included in his budget which include a replacement piece of equipment, as well as an athletic field top dresser. He wants to use some manpower from the existing crews, who are not getting any complaints, and focus on the complaint areas. Secondly, he talked about improving the quality of the parks, although the status quo has been maintained. His employees are locked into a routine, and even though they do their jobs well, they are doing the same thing year after year'. However, each year the parks get older. He is going to rely on the people who do the work to find better ways to do things, as well as choose the things they think should be done and the things they want to do. He wants to get rid of old parking bumpers, picnic tables and grills, etc. He would like to have some individual picnic pads, colorful flowers, and he would like to have the buildings repainted. All of this will be done in any reasonable way he can find to do it. He next discussed the Teen Center. The question is whether County dollars will be better spent if the Teen Center is taken on the road. He thinks they would be and this budget allows the potential to do so. The Shack has been open for two years, and the attendance is about the same as it was when it first opened. It has been successful when it has been compared to other teen centers in the state, and there is no one asking for a teen center as they were two years ago, but there are two problems. First, he does not know what will happen if the building is lost. Secondly, he thinks Albemarle County is too large to be effectively served by a single site Teen Center. He would like to take the money allocated for teen activities and start going out in the County with pilot programs. His staff has already talked to the Walton School principal about a pilot program there. He added that special activities will be run for middle school ages and other activities for high school ages. He wants to work with the City when it makes sense. The CACY Commission supports this idea, and the original people at the Teen Center support this idea as long as the money stays in the budget for teen activities. Mr. Mullaney next discussed the Neighborhood Team which he thinks is one of the most exciting things with which he has ever been involved. It has the potential to improve the lives of some of the County's residents who are not being effectively served now. His department has tried to do things at Yancey School with only mediocre success, but they run into road blocks. Now in meetings they have the Police Chief, Roxanne White from the County Executive's Office, Lee Catlin, Mac Tate, the PTO, the School Superintendent, etc., which gives this area enough clout to make Yancey School the first full-time community center. That is what it needs to be and it is what all of the schools need to be. This can happen, but the project needs this Board's help. Finally, he mentioned one item in his budget that wasn't funded which is the $2,500 for the Milton boat launch. He mentioned previous problems of dead-end roads. One way to control these problems is to gate the areas at night. If the roads are gated at night, the cops will come and lock the gates, but they may come at different times, which could be good. However, they have to be open in the mornings at a set time, and the only way to make sure the gates will be open at a certain time is to pay someone to do it. Without this service, his department members will become little more than a cleanup crew at Milton. He thinks the people who use this facility and the neighboring property owners deserve better service. He then handed out a letter to the Supervisors from Carole Hastings, Principal at Walton Middle School, in support of the after school program. Ms. Humphris asked if the gate opener would have to come every morning. Mr. Mullaney answered that the person would open the gate every morning and actually go through the area and pick up any trash, as well as alert his office to any problems. March 13, 1996 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 13) · 000222 Mr. Martin mentioned that the building in which the Teen Center is located has been bought by someone else. Mr. Mullaney replied that actually' the building has not been sold. He remarked that a person looked at the building who was very interested but the deal never happened. The County has a lease on the building through June, and the CACY Commission has recommended that the program be continued there through June. Mr. Martin asked if something else would be considered in June. Mr. Mullaney answered affirmatively. Ms. Humphris asked that the gate opener position be included on the list for further discussion. (Mr. Martin left at 2:18 p.m.) COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENTS Planning: Requested, $847,263; recomended, $837,628. V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director, was present. Mr. Cilimberg stated that he is basically asking for level budgeting for this year with one exception which has to do with General Information System (GIS) development. There are a couple of things that have not been ignored, and they may have to be addressed as time passes. He referred to two committees this Board appointed which are the Historic Resources Committee and the Mountain Protection Committee, and they are currently still working on recommendations. It is hoped these recommendations will be coming forward during the year, and the Mountain Protection Committee's first draft is already out for comment. The staff is unsure how the Supervisors will respond to it or what the recommendations might mean in terms of the staff's workload in the different County departments, but this Board will be made aware of this situation as these items are considered. He pointed out that results of work such as this can have staff implications. He recalled during the latter part of last year that there had been a request to this Board for a Historic Resources Planner. The staff feels this type of position needs to be evaluated within the scheme of recommendations such as the ones the two committees will be making, although it is uncertain at this time if this will be a necessity based on those recommendations. In terms of the GIS development, Mr. Cilimberg stated that there have been indications over the last couple of years that there needs to be a better way of undertaking the mapping process. The mapping process also needs to be coordinated with other data base resources and layers of data that are available locally or in the State, as well as information that needs to be developed. This gives the County a more efficient process in how the data and mapping work is undertaken. The staff has come forward with a request to get started in this area with a $25,000 GIS implementation plan. He anticipates that part of the initial GIS effort would be cadastral mapping or the mapping of tax map parcels which would be digitized and would be accurate to the level that they can be used and updated on an annual basis rather than literally hand drawing tax map parcels as subdivision occurs, etc. This is a much more accurate, efficient and quicker process once the data base is in place. He is calling for a pilot project this year in that area to undertake this type of mapping for two tax maps. There are a lot of advantages to this practice, and it is the foundation for the kind of information associated with tax map parcels in the County that would be available for ready access in the mapping system and to update as changes occur. It can easily result from the aerial photography contract that will be undertaken in the next week. These will be digitized aerial photos which mean they take into account the shape of the earth to avoid distortion. The County will have the base of information necessary to begin developing the GIS, and it is exciting for the staff. He believes it will enable the County to do a lot of things as GIS is considered in the future. Another component of this is not really a budget item, but an activity that has been suggested to the County Executive's office, and it has been supported. It is the creation of a team in the County to address GIS needs because they exist in virtually every department. The Planning Office is not the only department to benefit from a GIS in the County. Projects in the Police Department, Engineering Department, Registrar's Office, Department of Education, Real Estate and Finance have been identified as areas that can benefit from a GIS. This also gives the County an opportunity to link into the other sources such as the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission March 13, 1996 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 14) 000223 (TJPDC) as a GIS for the district. It doesn't have some of the components needed in Albemarle County, but it has some information available to bring into the County's GIS. As the County develops information, it can be shared with the PDC, and it can be available in that system. He also mentioned that the Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA), the University of Virginia (UVA), the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDoT)and the Census Bureau all have geographic information that can be used in exch&nge with them. Representatives in all of these areas have expressed an interest in having some of the finer details that may be developed in Albemarle County's GIS. He stated that Tex Weaver is present, and he can answer most of the technical questions. (Mr. Martin returned at 2:21 p.m.) ~ ~ ;~.~.~ ,~ ,~ ~ Ms. Thomas mentioned that it has been suggested in the PDC's section of the budget that the $10,000 not be included for buying a portion of mapping services, but instead to include $25,000 for developing the County's own system. This seems as though more money is being put into something so the County can have its own system which can be good, desirable and necessary. However, it can be a matter of pride and some other very human emotions can be getting in the way of what otherwise would be good budgeting sense. She asked Mr. Cilimberg if he could give some convincing reasons of why it is better to put two and one-half times as much money into developing the County's own system than buying into a system which already exists. Mr. Cilimberg replied that he cannot address the PDC's side of the issue, because it was not a decision made by the staff. Knowing the data base available with the PDC and other sources, this is information the staff feels would be very valuable in the County system, but it geneually is not at the resolution and scale the staff feels is needed. He gave an example by saying on tax map parcel mapping, the staff literally takes a 600 scale tax map and parcels each year. A part-time position known as a graphics aide position is used to draw in the new boundaries and parcels created through subdivision. This is a labor intensive task. He would like to develop a process where each tax map and parcel is digitized at a much more accurate level. With hand drawing, there will not be the preciseness that digitized parcels will have. This is not a project the PDC is pursuing, and it will cost a lot more money. This is the benefit the staff sees in GIS, and he thinks it is the level of detail the County would have in multiple departments, which is a different detail than what the PDC will digitize and develop. He then mentioned that the PDC's topography, which is available to the County, is from GIS sources, and it involves a 20 foot contour. The ACSA and the City of Charlottesville developed topography as part of their project in digitizing their service area. He said five foot contours were involved, so there is a great difference in the accuracy and the level of detail that can be used from a planning standpoint. As an example in the subdivision site plan process, five foot contours are required. Mr. Huff mentioned that he asked the staff members as part of their work program to analyze the different components of GIS to make sure the County was not duplicating anything. Everything the City, ACSA, PDC and County have done was considered, and the conclusion is represented in the'budget recommendation. The service of generating maps can be procured or purchased from the PDC, and the County already has this ability and manpower because of its 911 system. The $25,000 is for buying a data element, which is the digitized mapping. If the PDC staff members were asked to do it, they would have to spend the same $25,000 to have the data created. One is a data element that could be put into a person's pocket and taken with him or her, and the other is a purchase of service to take the data element and do something with it. The staff sees this as a collaborative effort between the entities mentioned to share the data elements so they are not buying the same thing. He concurred with Mr. Cilimberg that the PDC does not have a lot of the data elements the County needs at the required level of specificity or detail, so an agreement has been reached to work together and share those things. He also noted that the ACSA staff is waiting to swap some data after the aerial photographs are done. Ms. Humphris stated that it appears to her this project is not meant to be mutually exclusive, but interactive with everybody. She also mentioned the importance of turnaround time which allows the County staff members to have the information when they need it, and they will not have to wait for someone else to produce it. The fact of uncertain costs is another concern, because March 13, 1996 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 15) 000224 it would not to be possible to know exactly what things will cost if the County is not in control. Mr. Cilimberg commented that some of this was experienced with the Land Use Plan development. Last year the PDC helped develop maps displaying current land use under the Comprehensive Plan, and the County paid for this assistance. County staff members did a lot of adjusting with the PDC representatives to get things more precise. When the actual hardware and software of the Building Locator System came on line, the County was able to make its own land use maps. This meant there was no running back and forth to another source, and it was much more efficient. The maps were as good, if not better, than the maps from the other sources. Mr. Bowerman asked what the $25,000 pilot project represents of the total number of maps. Mr. Cilimberg replied that this funding will cover two tax maps out of a total of 139. Mr. Bowerman remarked that this is a very expensive project. Mr. Cilimberg stated that it would cost over $200,000 to cover all of the tax maps including parcels in the County. Mr. Marshall wondered if the maps can be sold. Mr[ Cilimberg answered that the County map products are sold now whenever there is an interest. There are usually a lot of requests for aerial photos once they are finished. Mr. Marshall asked if Mr. Cilimberg thinks enough map products could be sold to produce $200,000. Mr. Cilimberg replied that he cannot promise this, but there is interest in the community for such things. The more there is in the GIS, the more the consultants can come to the County rather than developing information on their own, and there will be a charge. Mr. Bowerman wondered if the Freedom of Information Act would interfere with the County making much money on such products. Mr. Cilimberg responded that the County provides its products at the County's cost, and that is the way the fee system is based. Mr. Tucker stated that all of the County's fees are done in this manner. Mr. Davis commented that there are some problems with the Freedom of Information Act depending on the type of information, but the cost is usually what it takes the County to produce and deliver products. Sometimes the costs cannot be recovered, but there are some exceptions. Mr. Bowerman asked how this compares to one meter resolution satellite photography that is going to be available commercially very soon. He noted that there are three or four competing national aerospace companies that are in the process of putting up satellites. They will sell utilities to governments that will have one meter resolution. He asked about the resolution with which the County is currently working. Mr. Cilimberg said aerials cannot just be flown and a data base established so it will operate forever from that base. Updates are necessary, and it may very well be that the satellite photography of the future, if it is at a resolution the County can use, can replace the contracts that are being done approximately every five years for aerial photos. This will need to be done to keep things updated. Mr. Weaver stated that the County has procured some of the satellite imagery from the State free of charge. Information was recently received that this is on compact disks but the County does not have the software, at this time, to use it. It is a ten meter resolution, currently, and the digital information the County will be receiving, as a result of the aerial photo missions, will be a three foot resolution. Ms. Thomas asked that the $25,000 item for buying the data element for digitized mapping be put on the list for further discussion. Housing: Requested, $338,787; recommended, $338,787. Ginnie McDonald, Director, was present. Ms. McDonald said the Housing Committee is going to be requesting a work session in late spring or early summer to bring the Supervisors up-to-date on issues they are facing as well as issues they would like for the Committee members to address. She would save discussion of the Housing Program for that time unless the Supervisors have specific questions, and she would focus on today's budget issues. Her staff members want to thank the Supervisors for their budget action last year. They now have new computer hardware and a new software system to operate the rental assistance program. They are doing the 000225 March 13, 1996 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 16) last of the data conversion today, so information will soon be available as to where the Section 8 residents live, what census tracks they are in, their average income, their source of income, how many single heads and dual heads of households there are, and just about any kind of information for planning purposes. She then noted the two requests in the Housing budget above and beyond the baseline. An additional half-time person is being requested. She explained that currently there are one and one-half Housing Specialists in the budget document who are referred to as Eligibility Specialists. She hopes the half-time person can go to full-time. The positions will eventually be called Housing Specialists. She recalled that the last time there was an increase in the staff for the Housing Office was in 1990, and at, the time there-were approximately 100 VHDA units. Now there are approximateiy 164 VHDA units. Since then, the local Family Self-Sufficiency Program has been started with certificates, as well as the Family Unification Program with vouchers. She noted that with fees earned through the program the $14,000 increase can be supported. The second budget item being requested is an additional $4,300 in training, which she thinks is very critical. She remarked that $2,700 was spent this year to have regional training at the Omni for the Tenant Integrity Program. This program assures that the right family is in the right unit paying the right rent, and the landlord is receiving the correct subsidy payment. There wasa national trainer who came to Charlottesville, to reduce travel costs, and the cost was $325 per person instead of the usual $375. She said people came from Norfolk, Newport News, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Maryland and Washington to this program. She reiterated that $2,700 was spent, but $15,000 of program abuse or fraud has been detected, and $4,800 of that amount has been recaptured. The training may be expensive but it pays for itself. Ms. McDonald then noted that a participating landlord has the right to submit his or her own lease and not use a form or sample lease. The Housing Office has been unable to offer this service in the past to landlords because the staff has not been trained in the Fair Housing Law or the Virginia Residential Landlord Tenant Act. Some of the staff has gone through the training this year, and now two leases have been approved that a landlord traditionally used in his rental program. This customer service could not have been offered before. She then talked about the dollars involved in the Section $ program. There are 415 units involved which translates to 830 customers because there are families as well as landlords. This generates a little less than $3,000,000 in rental assistance payments to the private rental community annually. In FY 1994-95, the earned fee revenue was $143,600. This year she anticipates closing out the year with a fee of $171,000, and next year it is anticipated the fee will be $189,000. The additional half-time staff person and the training are very critical to the program, and they~can be paid for out of revenues generated by the program. She looks at this as an opportunity because there is good news and bad news coming from Congress. She has no idea what Congress is going to do with the Section 8 program, although she knows her program will not get any additional funding for a while, so good use had better be made of the subsidy for the 415 families. Although there is an opportunity to design the County's own programs because there is going to be more local empowerment and less regulation. The better the staff is trained, the better they are able to design the program to meet the needs of the localities, which is a natural tie-in with the neighborhood teams. She noted that representatives from the Housing Office are on that team, and they are taking the attitude of asking the communities their needs relative to housing and how a program can be written in a certain way to meet a community's needs. Mr. Martin commented that he knows an individual who was a City resident and was on the City's Section 8 waiting list. This person moved briefly into a hotel located in the County and got on the County's Section 8 list and was offered housing even though the person remained on the City's waiting list. Ms. McDonald told Mr. Martin she would like to talk to him another time about the specifics of this situation because she would like to look into this matter. She said 160 of the subsidies are administered on behalf of VHDA, so if the person lives or works in the State, he or she can be on this list. With the conforming rule approved this past fall, all subsidies are portable, although her staff members are still working with their clients to encourage them to find housing within Albemarle County. 000226 March 13, 1996 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 17) Mr. Marshall remarked that he had situations such as this in mind when he was talking about the Management Analyst position earlier. Marshall left at 2:45 p.m.) Zoning: Requested, $430,553; recoam%ended, $429,253. Amelia G. McCulley, Director, was present Ms. McCulley noted that the Zoning Department's budget proposal set forth by the County Executive's Office followed the appropriate guidelines, and the County Executive's recommendation adequately provides the funds for the level of service necessary to.meet critical needs. She. then read.the Zoning Department's Mission Statement, and said the staff members believe in it. Things have changed a lot during the last seven years since she started working for the County, and it has changed drastically to a much improved level of service. This is in large part due to the philosophy of the County Executive's Office and how this Board has entrusted the Zoning Department to do its work, as well as funding the Zoning Department with the necessary staff, equipment and training. Responsibilities have increased and will continue to increase. She referred to Mr. Cilimberg's previous statement that the County may one day have a Mountain Protection Ordinance and an Historic Resources Ordinance. These ordinances will present new challenges for tomorrow. She mentioned that there are critical issues relating to additional violations and the long involved process for compliance. There are further needs involving tracking plans and permits and for providing assistance to the public to get through the myriad of procedures for approval of anything from a very simple building permit to a developer's approval for a more involved development project. All of these things involve training, technology and equipment, which the Board members are funding. Ms. McCulley thanked the Supervisors for their support. Although it is not generally the type of job for which someone gets thanks, since they are in a land use enforcement position, she can attest to the fact that there is an appreciation that the Supervisors want to protect and enhance the quality of this environment to maintain the sense of place and to allow the Zoning Department to do that with its funding. There were no questions for Ms. McCulley. Soil/Water: Requested, $29,643; recommended, $29,643. Allyson Sappington was present. Ms. Sappington stated that the County Executive has ~recommended funding for her department as requested. She is requesting no expanded programs, other than a cost of living increase in salaries for employees. She would be happy to answer questions about the budget or the department's service in general. Ms. Sappington thanked the Supervisors for their past support. Ms. Thomas asked Ms. Sappington to explain the term, "Bad Actor" legislation. Ms. Sappington responded that the term, "Bad Actor" legislation relates to the same type of situation that the Forestry Department has currently. Assistance relating to water quality would be complaint driven, and there wouldn't be specific criteria for people to follow. However, if someone is causing danger to the water quality, action can be taken, and it would be much less bureaucratic than some of the other proposals. Ms. Thomas commented that there seems to be a lot of chance involved with this method of enforcement. Ms. Sappington answered that there would be a lot of subjectivity to it. Extension Service: Requested, $135,942; recommended, $135,942. David Vaden was present. Mr. Vaden stated that funding for the Extension Services Department is essentially level. There has been a small change in the staffing plan for his office, since Charlie Goodman will be working in Fluvanna County. Mr. Vaden reported that he has been specifically assigned to Plann%ng District 10, so he will be spending more of his time in Albemarle County, although he had been assigned to multiple counties in the past. He does not think these changes March 13, 1996 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 18) 000227 will have any impact on the services offered to Albemarle County because Charlie Goodman will still be available to answer the horticultural questions and to help with anything involving the programs he has worked with in the past. Everything should remain the same, and he appreciates the support from this Board. Ms. Thomas inquired if this session of the General Assembly changed the Extension Services Department's funding in any way. Mr. Vaden responded that his office was fully funded in the Governor's budget, so things have worked out very well this year. Ms. Thomas mentioned that the Extension Services Office is fully funded at a decreased level, because there was a decrease in funding last year. Mr. Vaden agreed. (Mr. Marshall returned at 2:49 p.m.) Gypsy Moth: Requested, $49,387; recommended, $24,724. Steven G. Meeks, Executive Director, was present. Mr. Meeks said he has already indicated to Roxanne White that a slight adjustment in the budget is necessary, and it represents an increase in personnel costs, mostly associated with his position. He has received the full base line funding which he appreciates. He also requested additional monies for a permanent Forest Pest Technician. Mr. Meeks pointed out that currently he is the only full-time permanent employee, and everybody else is on a part time basis. He said not knowing yearly what the final income levels are going to be until basically the end of the year, it would be reassuring to know there is funding available to hire someone on more of a permanent basis. It would also be more equitable for some of the people who have been working in this program for many years and who have done so without any additional benefits. He can continue the program as is, if necessary. Ms. Thomas asked if she understands correctly that the part time employees have no benefits. Mr. Meeks answered affirmatively. They are just temporary. Ms. Thomas inquired as to how many temporary employees have been involved with Mr. Meeks' program this past year. Mr. Meeks replied that there have been four part time employees during the past year, although one of the individuals has been involved in the program on an almost daily basis. Hours vary depending on need and monies. His request is for at least a half-time person to work 20 hours a week. COMMUNITY AGENCIES PUBLIC SAFETY Juvenile Detention Home: Requested~ $110,500; reconanended, $110,500. Mr. Tucker reported that Albemarle County's projected FY 1997 cost of $110,500 is based on a 52.5 percent increase in the number of detention days for the first eleven months of 1995 over the first eleven months of the previous year. This is a combined factor of the increasing number of juveniles, as well as the increasing length of stay. This is not just related to the Shenandoah Valley Juvenile Detention Home, since this trend is being seen throughout the State. He stated that to absorb what would be the additional $38,589 in local costs, staff proposes to use a portion of the new Virginia Juvenile Community Crime Control Act (VJCCCA) funds of $136,848, which have already been allocated to Albemarle County. The remaining $98,259 of the grant will be allocated to Community Attention to be used to purchase community based services for juveniles referred by Juvenile Court. This will require an amendment to the initial plan approved by the Board, which proposed to use all of the $136,589 for community based services. However, the State has indicated that the plan may be amended, as long as the grant funds do not reduce the current level of local effort. The staff is recommending full funding of the $110,500 for the Juvenile Detention Home. There were no questions for Mr. Tucker. Community Attention: Requested, $62,050; recommended, $160,309. Ms. White reported that the Community Attention program has requested $62,050 which is a three percent increase over last year's allocation. She called attention to the top of Page 129 where the difference is shown between the Community Attention's request and the County Executive's recommendation, March 13, 1996 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 19) 000228 and she mentioned a plan that was done in the fall which allocated the funds from the Juvenile Community Crime Control Act to Community Attention. The Community Attention Office will be the holder of these funds, and they will be used by the court services to provide community based services to juveniles who go through the court system. The County Executive's recommendation supports the Budget Review Team's recommendation of a three percent increase. The allocation for the ongoing services of the four Community Attention programs is the $62,050, and the total allocation of $160,309 includes $98,259 in VJCCCA funds for the purchase of community based services for juveniles referred by the Court. Ms. Thomas commented on the fact that the Communit~ Attention program has successfully raised $12,000. She said this effort should be commended. Offender Aid and Restoration (OAR): Requested, $38,899; reconunended, $38,525. Patricia Smith, Executive Director, was present. Ms. White remarked that OAR has requested a four percent increase which is $38,899 in baseline funding from Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville which is primarily to fund salary and benefit increases. No new or expanded programs have been proposed for either the City or the County. The County Executive supports the Budget Review Team's recommendation which is basically for a three percent increase for a total allocation of $38,525. There were no questions for Ms. White. (Mr. Bowerman left at 2:55 p.m.) HUMAN SERVICES Thomas Jefferson Health District: Requested, $656,900; recommended, $636,540. Dr. Susan L. McLeod, Executive Director, was present. Ms. White stated that the Thomas Jefferson Health District has requested $656,900 from the County which reflects a total district budget of $4,950,000. The significant increases in the request to the localities, including Albemarle, is to offset some level funding from the State as well as a projected decrease of approximately $60,000 in some special project revenues which have been used a lot for the Mothers, Families and Children program in the Child Health Partnership Program. The changes included in the budget request, although additional funds have not been requested from the localities, add a part time dentist, refilling two environmental inspector positions and filling two vacant positions lost in the work force reductions in the current year. The County Executive has recommended a three percent increase in funding for the Health Department fora total contribution of $636,540. As far as the issue of additional funding to offset level State funding or the shortfall in the other grant related funds, no additional funds are recommended at this time. She then noted a movement in the community to consider a comprehensive program that would address children at risk. Additional funds are not recommended to be put into this type of program at this point until the community has had a chance to come back together to decide how these funds should be targeted. (Mr. Bowerman returned at 2:59 p.m.) Ms. Thomas commented that she would want to allocate more funding to the Health Department if it was not for the community-wide discussion as to how to fill in the gaps that will become bigger as the State's dollars are reduced in a number of ways into this community. This goes along with what most counties are being urged to do which is not just to replace the money but see how it can be done better. She emphasized that as long as everybody is committed to doing this type of analysis with the community, she can support this proposal. Dr. McLeod stated that the information Ms. White reported is based on the budget that was submitted. The amount of funding in this budget is not needed because the State has chosen to change the way it is handling its payroll which is approximately 85 percent of the Health Department's costs. Everybody is getting an increase in salary, but the plan defers four percent of the costs into the following fiscal year by shifting payroll dates. Therefore, the level of funding she requested is not needed. The Health Department will not receive level funding from the State, but will receive a March 13, 1996 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 20) 000229 decrease in funding. She is unsure if this will be a four or five percent decrease, at this time. She reiterated that her budget needs less funding, so the funding of three percent that the City and County will allocate, should allow for the maintenance of the programs in a stable situation during the next year while the community discussions are being held. She commented that the programs can be maintained, while the long range needs are considered. She emphasized that things will be much worse for the Health Department, particularly next year, with the shifting of the costs into the following year. Ms. Thomas remarked that she does not understand how the Health Department is getting less money from the State and needs less money from the County. Dr, McLeod responded that the costs are going to be less because the payroll will cost less next year. She noted that the Health Department's staff will get 23 paychecks instead of 24 paid out of next year's budget. The paycheck that would have come at the end of June will be moved to July. Region Ten Con. unity Services: Requested, $251,811; recommended, $251,811. James R. Peterson, Director, was present. Ms. White reported that Region Ten Community Services' total operating budget for FY 1997 is $10,700,000, which is an increase of four percent over the current year. The requested share from the County is $51,811, which is only a 0.7 percent increase. This is almost level funding as a result of Region Ten revisiting its level share formula. Albemarle County has been paying slightly over its share, so that is why Albemarle County's funding is only increasing by $1,707. The County Executive recommends funding Region Ten at its baseline level of request. Children and Youth Commission: Requested. $25,792; recommended. $25,792. Rory Carpenter, Executive Director, was present. Ms. White noted that the total operating budget for the Children and Youth Commission (CACY) is $103,480, which is a 2.4 percent increase over the current year. The County's contribution is a 15 9 percent increase over CACY's adopted budget. However, she directed attention to CACY's revised budget from last year and explained that this Board approved an additional $2,500 of funding, at that time, to make up for the State's reduced funding. CACY's budget request is actually only a four percent increase over the revised budget and not over the adopted budget. The County Executive has recommended full funding of the County's share of CACY's budget as requested in the amount of $25,792. Ms. Thomas said she really appreciated the analysis that was made of the funding request which was provided to this Board. It was helpful to hear about some things working better than others, and she liked the emphasis that was put on cooperation and coordination. "Beating the Odds": Requested, $11,410; recommended, $0. Ms. White commented that the Beating the Odds Program was not shown on the Board's schedule. However, she called attention to the fact that this program is shown on the next page after the CACY Commission's budget request, since it is a cooperative effort between MACAA, CACY and Region Ten. This is a new program which was developed to prevent teenage pregnancy for at-risk youth, and the program was targeted for boys and girls ages eight to eleven. The emphasis of the program deals with developing life skills by looking at children's self esteem concepts and by providing a series of after school workshops. The program is targeted to serve approximately eight youth in Albemarle County and sixteen in Charlottesville. The target groups could be located at some of the housing developments in Charlottesville and possibly Whitewood or the Esmont Community in Albemarle. The Budget Review Team supported the concept of examining the problem of teen pregnancy but did not support funding the program at this time. The CACY Commission was asked to consider this program in light of a total strategy of dealing with teen pregnancy. There were several other groups and organizations which were also addressing teen pregnancy, and the CACY Commission was asked to examine how these organizations could work together in a more comprehensive program. The hope was not necessarily just to have separate agencies which would coordinate with each other, but to have a primary focus on how teen.pregnancy can be March 13, 1996 (Adjourned Meeting) (page 21) 0002;30 strategically reduced and who should be involved at each point along this continuum. The recommendation is not to fund this new program, but to request the CACY Commission to examine how this type of program might fit into an overall strategy and then come back with a recommendation. Ms. Thomas stated that the County does not have any funds to provide for such a program in this year's budget, so the ability to do something about the teenage pregnancy problem would be postponed for eighteen months. She would like to put this program on the Board's list for further discussion. She emphasized that she does not disagree with the analysis, but she would like to have a Board discussion about having funds available for such a program, even if the suggested analysis is done. Ms. White responded that an option used in the past is to put a specific amount of money into the Board of Supervisors' departmental budget as a contingency account. Ms. Thomas said she does not want this Board to make a decision now, but she would like to have the item put on the list for discussion. Mr. Marshall concurred. Ms. Humphris mentioned other programs such as Project Discovery, Teen Sight, Stepping Up and Camp Horizon. There is another organization called the Prevention Council, which has been very active, and she thinks these programs should be included for discussion. Ms. White stated that there are other programs, such as the 4-H Club, that she thinks should also be considered. Charlottesville Free Clinic: Requested, $5,356; recommended, $5,000. Betty Newell, Director, was present. Ms. White commented that the Charlottesville Free Clinic is projecting a total budget for FY 1996-97 of approximately $250,000, 90 percent of which is collected from the community by grants and contributions. The $5,356, which has been requested from the County, represents two percent of the total budget. It has been recommended by the County/City Budget Review Team for the second year in a row that the County support the Free Clinic by a contribution but that it should not become involved in any type of a local share formula or any type of relationship to its operating costs. The recommendation is for a straight level contribution in recognition of the excellent service the Free Clinic provides the community. The County Executive supports the recommendation for level funding of $5,000 to the Free Clinic. Mr. Martin remarked that he understands the rationale of this recommendation, but he would like the Free Clinic item put on the list for further discussion. However, he noted that the dollar amount does not have to be included. -~ Sexual Assault Resource Agency: Requested, $20,567; recommended, $20,190. Annette G. Grimm, Director, was present. Ms. White noted the request of $20,567 from the Sexual Assault Resource Agency (SARA). She said $13,421 is for direct client services to rape victims, and approximately $7,146 is for its education and prevention programs. SARA has also submitted a funding request to the School Division for its CAP Program which has been funded in the School Division's operating budget. The County Executive supports the County/City Budget Review Team's recommendation to fund a three percent baseline increase for a total County allocation of $20,190. Ms. Thomas wondered why there is a decrease in the University's contribution. She asked if there was anything County officials could do formally or informally to urge the University to give this service more support. It was a very unusual thing when the University came forward to support SARA, because it does not usually support such agencies. However, recognition was made that this was a service the University was not offering and it was much needed by some students. Ms. White answered that she does not know why the University gave less of a contribution to the SA2~A program. The University now has its own Sexual Assault Coordinator, and that could have been the rationale for not increasing its support for SARA. She emphasized that she does not believe the numbers SARA serves have decreased. Ms. Thomas asked Ms. White to find out more about the University's decrease in contribution to the SARA program. March 13, 1996 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 22) 00023 . District Home: Requested, $41,400; recommended, $41,100. Mr. Tucker stated that the staff is recommending the funding of the request from the District Home of $41,100 which is an $1,100 increase or 2.8 percent over FY 1995-96. There were no questions for Mr. Tucker. Salvation Army: Requested, $20,000; recommended, $0. Ms. White pointed out that the Salvation Army is a new request this year to the County, although it is not a new program. She said the Community Assessment Program (CAP) was established in 1992, and it is a joint effort by both the Charlottesville and Albemarle Departments of Social Services. The idea was to bring together all of the emergency requests to one location, and the Salvation Army had offered to be the central focus point. At this time, the Albemarle and Charlottesville Departments of Social Services are providing a person, the funding is split 60/40 with the City, and someone is at the Salvation Army to work with this project 20 hours a week. This program provides a benefit to the County and the City because it reduces a lot of the workload of emergency requests coming directly into the Social Services Department. There is also $350,000 of direct assistance that can be leveraged from the community churches and other groups, as well as the Salvation Army's own fundraising. If long term help is needed the people are referred back to an agency, but the Salvation Army basically provides emergency housing and food assistance, and it helps people pay utility and rental payments, etc. The County/City Budget Review Team supports the work of this program and recommends that if additional funds or discretionary funds are available that $4,000 be allocated, not directly to the Salvation Army, but to the Department of Social Services to contract for additional time at the Community Assessment Program. The request is for $20,000 from the County and $30,000 from the City. She noted other recommendations that there be further collaboration with other agencies. It has been suggested that MACAA and the Jefferson Area Board for Aging might also contribute manpower time to the Center. However, this has.not been included in the County Executive's funding request. Ms. Thomas wondered if it will kill this program, if the Supervisors don't support it. The Salvation Army is requesting $20,000 and at most the recommendation is for $4,000. Ms. White referred to the first paragraph under the budget discussion on Page 175 where it shows the Salvation Army's total budget. The Salvation Army has $350,000 which can be leveraged. However, if the Salvation Army has to cover all the costs of the program, it will not be able to leverage as much money for direct services, which reduces the amount of money the Salvation Army can provide to emergency needs. The Salvation Army has been covering a lot of the expenses of the program with its own staff and overhead expenses, so if Albemarle and Charlottesville do not contribute to that, more of the $350,000 will have to be used to pay for administrative and overhead costs. If Albemarle and Charlottesville actually pay more into running the program, then there will be more money to distribute to the community. She emphasized that this does not mean the demise of the program. The Budget Review Team's consensus was that if the Salvation Army needed some additional support, additional funding would be recommended, not in the amount of $20,000, but other ways would be examined of trying to bring in other community agencies to provide some of the workload support. Mr. Bowerman asked if the workload support would be given on weekends or during normal business hours. He also wondered if people would be paid time and a half. Ms. White answered that staff is being provided during the week which is one afternoon a week. The Salvation Army is also paying some of its own staff out of its budget. There are some people who are available over weekends, and they address emergency needs. However, the County staff is not there at that time. Ms. Thomas remarked that she cannot get a feeling for how needed or important this program is. This is one of the reasons the human resources section of the Comprehensive Plan is needed. The Budget Team probably has a better feel for this. Ms. White responded that the Budget Review Team felt' that a $50,000 increase shared between the City and the County was too much. However, it was felt that additional help may be needed in support for time, and some money could be put in each budget in order to purchase some more time. She reiterated that there was a recommendation to have more of a collaborative effort and have other agencies provide some of this support, but March 13, 1996 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 23) 0002 2 this issue needs further study. This recommendation is a start but it is going to take some more discussion. She noted that the MACAA staff members have some ideas of how this program might be looked at differently and how they might contribute. There are some which need to be worked out before this much money is contributed to the program. This is the first time the Supervisors have had a request from this agency so there has not been a lot of study. Ms. Humphris asked if any of the Board members would like for the $4,000 to be put into the Department of Social Services for possible contracting to the Salvation Army for emergency services. Jefferson Area United Transportation: Requested, $283,037; recommended, $293,795. Ms. White reported that JAUNT's total budget of $2,505,144 is a $250,533 increase over FY 1995-96, which is 11 percent. The budget request to Albemarle County is for $283,037, which is a 1.1 percent increase over the current year. JALTNT's budget reflects two functions. One is the administrative budget which is a four percent increase over the current year and reflects the ride share budget and Albemarle County's contribution to it this year. The administrative budget also reflects the County's share of the operations. The operations budget is increasing by nine percent this year, but Albemarle County has a relatively small increase, because ridership increased only by 2.2 percent. This compares with last year's 20 percent increase of ridership hours. The County's ridership hours are leveling off, although there have been some very big increases in the County's ridership hours during the last several years. This is the first year there has been a reduced request from JAUNT. The County Executive's recommendation is to fully fund JAUNT at its request of $283,037. In addition, the County Executive is recommending funding $10,755 in matching funds. She explained that the Jefferson Area Board for Aging (JABA) has approximately $28,500 that it spends on transportation which is to provide transportation to the adult day care center and the senior nutrition sites. JAUNT indicates that if money is put into Albemarle County's local share, Section 18, rural transportation funds, can be used. With this, the recommendation is for additional money to be put in the JAUNT budget to set up a fund whereby JABA can have $28,000 of services available. This saves the County approximately $17,745 by transferring these funds and accessing the same level of support from the JAUNT budget. Ms. Thomas inquired if rural transportation funds are limited to the more rural sections of the County. Ms. White replied that they are restricted to outside of the urban area. Ms. Thomas wondered if this would limit a request through JABA for transportation within the urban portion of Albemarle County. Ms. White responded that there are no funds available for the urban section. However, the majority of the ridership is from the outlying areas. She mentioned that the transportation in the Esmont area takes people to the Esmont Center. This is an example of where strictly rural transportation funds are appropriate. Ms. Thomas called attention to the last sentence on Page 176 that was incomplete. Ms. White answered that this sentence should state that the total recommendation was for $293,795. This is a way to be efficient and save some County dollars, and JABA will have the ability to draw down the $28,500 of services they are now using. If it is found that JABA is not able to utilize the numerous services, then this situation will have to be re-examined during the year. Jefferson Area Board on Aging: Requested, $185,166; recommended, $115,125. Ms. White noted that the total budget for JABA is $2,835,855 which is a 3.18 percent increase over the current year. The request to the County is for $45,636, which is an approximate 32.7 percent increase. The increased requests, which were given to both the City and County, are a result of a reduction in some of the federal funds which amounted to approximately $60,000. There is also a projection of $68,000 to be lost from rental income. Another reason for the large increase in the request is because the PDC was asked to re-examine JABA's local share formula. She reminded the Supervisors that this Board actually instigated the request, and County and City officials had asked JABA to base its budget request on the new formula. However, when March 13, 1996 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 24) 000 . 3 the new formula was applied, it was not felt it was applied evenly to all the programs, in addition to the fact that the outlying counties had not agreed to this proposed formula. Rather than using the proposed formula, the Budget Review Team recommended that the old formula be used and also recommended for this year a three percent increase to JABA. The funding formula is to continue to be examined by Charlottesville and Albemarle, as well as the outlying localities. She recalled a feeling last year that Albemarle and Charlottesville were paying a greater extent of the services than the outlying counties. It was found that the newly proposed formula may put a heavier burden on the outlying counties, and this situation will have to be re- examined. The recommendation is for Albemarle County to fund a three percent baseline increase for FY 1996-97 which brings the total County allocation to $143,715. She also referred to the top of Page 179 where~she ~said a reduction is reflected relating to the $28,500 in transportation funds in JABA's request. Mr. Martin asked why' Mr~ Walker was not present. responded that he would be coming from another meeting. questions from Board members. Ms. Lida Arnassan She could answer any Ms. Thomas commented that she and Mr. Perkins, who are members of the PDC, know this issue has been complex. She appreciates everything people have done to try to figure out a better distribution formula.. It is still awkward, because they have not been able to work out the formula with other counties. However, it is recommended that JABA will be given the three percent increase, that other agencies are receiving. Ms. White concurred. She indicated that the decision was made not to look at the budget with the new formula in mind, but just recommend the three percent increase. Madison House: Requested, $5,252; recommended, $4,330. Cindy Frederick, Executive Director, was present. Ms. White remarked that the request from Madison House to the County is for $5,252. This increase is for an additional part time staff person who can assist, with program coordination, planning and volunteer placement. The remaining $2,100 needed to fund the position has been requested from the University of Virginia. The Budget Review Committee has recommended a three percent baseline increase and did not recommend funding the additional person. The rationale behind this recommendation is that this is more of the University's responsibility. The County will continue to contribute its share of the budget, but will not expand Madison House's staff. The recommendation from the County/City Budget Review Team, supported by the County Executive, is for $4,330, which is a three percent increase over the current year. Ms. Thomas pointed out that Madison House has a tremendous number of volunteer hours for the funding that the County puts into it. It has a very impressive multiplier factor, and she wondered if the Budget Review Team was not convinced that there would be enough additional hours produced by this additional position. Ms. White answered that the Budget Review Team realizes that Madison House is of great benefit to the County, and it leverages a lot of student time to provide services. It also is a benefit to the University and its students, because there are many benefits the students receive by serving as volunteers. It was the Budget Review Team's feeling that it weighed more heavily on the fact that it was a University sponsored program, and it provided benefits to the University students to be involved in community activities. Therefore, it was felt it was more the University's responsibility than the community's. Ms. Humphris mentioned that there are three entities involved, and she wondered about the timing element in such situations. She asked when will it be known if the University will fund this request. Ms. White replied that this is usually not known until after the County's budget sessions are over. Ms. Humphris said this makes this situation difficult for County officials. Ms. Thomas wondered if it is yet known what the City will do concerning its funding to Madison House. Ms. White responded that the City officials are making the same recommendation. Ms. Thomas said perhaps.the County should do the same thing as the City this time. However, she did not want the County officials to make a mistake when they deal with situations with such a multiplier effect. March 13, 1996 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 25) 000284 Mr. Martin related the situation with Madison House to the Free Clinic where every dollar is multiplied many times. This is why he wanted to put the Free Clinic issue on the list for discussion, because Perhaps it deserves at least the three percent budget increase being given to Madison House. Ms. Humphris wondered what type of communication the County officials can have with the University, if the request for increased funding is not dealt with again until next year. She noted that half of the request is being made to University officials, and it seems they need to be part of this discussion. If they participated they could try to convince the Supervisors that if the University contributes $2,100 then perhaps the Supervisors could contribute their share. Ms. Thomas asked if this item could be put on the PACC agenda. Mr. Tucker commented that he will ask Mr. Leonard Sandridge if he will put the Madison House item on the PACC agenda. Ms. White commented that the University officials have not been part of the budget discussions in the past. Teensight: Requested, $20,596; recommended, $20,205. Alicia Lugo, Executive Director. Ms. White commented that the Incentives for School Age Mothers Program, "Teensight," is requesting $20,596 from Albemarle County. The request is basically to fund the same program that has been funded for the past several years. The five percent requested increase will be used to fund the five percent salary increase to the Program's worker who works in the three high schools. It will also add two weeks of service from 36 to 38 weeks, and it will increase rental fees from $45 to $50 a month. She stated that the County Executive supports the recommendation of the County/City Budget Review Team for a three percent baseline increase, which is a total allocation of $20,205. Mr. Martin asked the cost of the increase in service from 36 to 38 weeks. Ms. Lugo answered that it will increase the school liaison worker's service to two more weeks, and the rationale is that it would give her an opportunity to do more follow-up when school is out. Currently the liaison's work year conforms with the school year, and anything she does beyond that in terms of follow-up is gratis. The liaison has done this for three years, and it is felt she should be compensated for this service. Mr. Martin stated that he will not support the five percent salary increase, since everybody else has been given three percent. However, he will support the $200 to.increase the service of the school liaison from 36 weeks to 38 weeks. He asked that this item for the $200 be put on the list for further discussion. .... Ms. Thomas commented that it is a marvelous statement that there are no second pregnancies among the 42 students. Ms. Lugo reported that there are currently 35 young people in the program with no second pregnancies thus far. Shelter for Help in Emergency: Requested, $60,037; recommended, $57,115. Mary-Carter Lominack, Director, was present. Ms. White stated that the budget request for the Shelter for Help in Emergency (SHE) is for $60,037 which is a 5.12 percent increase for Albemarle County. The Budget Review Team recommended that this program be level funded rather than at its requested amount. In prior years there has been a local share formula with the Shelter which considers a three year percentage of the Shelter's usage by the residents of each locality. The percentage that the County funds the Shelter is based on the numerous services provided over that three year period. However, the Shelter has asked for a general increase over last year's allocation rather than requesting funds based on the local share. This means Albemarle County is funding approximately $18,000 over the local share for services. Rather than recommending that the funding allocation be cut to reflect the services provided, it is recommended that the Shelter be level funded at $57,115, the same as FY 1995-96. This is to give other localities the opportunity to move up in their recommendations for funding, and it will not severely impact the Shelter's ability to operate the program. Mr. Martin stated that he understands the rationale the Budget Review Team is using. Although, over the last two years additional funding has been added to the Shelter. This was not based solely on the formula, and that is March 13, 1996 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 26) 0002 5 why Albemarle County is ahead of the other localities. In his opinion, this decision was made consciously last year and year before last. Rather than level funding, he would like to add to the list for further discussion a three percent increase to the Shelter's funding. The County gets a lot for relatively small dollars with these types of agencies. He thinks this three percent increase for the Shelter can be funded, forgetting about the principle of making other localities increase their funding. Mr. Bowerman suggested that Madison House be included on the list for further discussion. Ms. Humphris wondered if Mr. Bowerman wanted to have the Madison House discussion contingent upon the University's and City's funding. Mr. Bowerman said he just thought it should be on the list for further discussion. ~Ms. White stated that the staff could contact University officials before the next budget work session to see if they have done anything about this funding. Ms. Humphris agreed that it would be helpful if the staff could get this information. Charlottesville/Albemarle Legal Aid Society: Requested, $21,753; recommended $16,125. Alex R. Gulotta, Director, was present. Ms. White stated that the Charlottesville/Albemarle Legal Aid Society proposed a total budget of $452,833 for FY 1996-97, which is an 11 percent increase over the current year. The major increase in this funding related to the hiring of a new attorney. A 39 percent increase has been requested from Albemarle County, and the request from the City increased by approximately 76 percent. Additional funding has also been requested from United Way and the other outlying localities for this new attorney's position. The Budget Review Team did not recommend funding the additional position and made a recommendation for the three percent baseline increase. .This recommendation is supported by the County Executive's office, and it represents a total allocation of $16,125. The Budget Committee's rationale was that the Legal Aid Society is having a lot of problems in trying to keep its current staff and funding, so the recommendation was that another attorney not be hired at this time in light of the decreasing funds. It is hoped the Legal Aid Society can keep its current program solvent without adding a new attorney. There were also additional questions about whether this request would be supported by United Way and the other outlying localities. There were no questions for Ms. White. United Way Child Care Scholarship Program: Requested, $50,545; recommended, $50,545. John Nafsziger, Director, was present. Ms. White reported that the United Way has requested a total of $50,545 from Albemarle County. The increase is basically to fund two additional scholarships at a cost of $6,240. The recommendation from the Budget Review Team is to fund the total increase which includes the two additional scholarships. The County Executive supports this recommendation. There were no questions for Ms. White. Children, Youth & Family Services: Requested, $32,692; recommended, $27,865. Cathy Bodkin, Executive Director, was present. Ms. White noted that the Children, Youth and Family Services has requested a contribution of $32,692 from Albemarle County, which is a 21 percent increase over the current year. This agency has three programs, but the major increase is in its Child Care Resource and Referral Program. The rationale for the increase is to bring the County's funding commensurate with the City's funding. The Family Partners Program is a level funded request at $15,192, and funds are also being requested for the Runaway Emergency Shelter Program, which is also level funded at $2,500, as it was last year. The Budget Review Team did not recommend funding the'additional money from Albemarle County, but instead recommended the three percent increase, for a total recommendation of $27,865. Ms. Thomas inquired if it is known when State funds will be available for the Family Partners Program. Ms. White answered that the State funds are available. The budget amendment restored all of the trust funds not for any additional programs, but they will support the ongoing programs. Ms. Thomas March 13, 1996 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 27) 000236 asked if this proposal allows the County to fund its share. Ms. White replied that the County is funding its total share of the Family Partners Program and the Runaway Shelter Program. The only one the County is not fully funding is the Child Care Resource and Referral. This program is being funded at a three percent increase over last year, but it is not being funded at the total that was requested. The request went from $9,300 to $15,000, which was to make the County's share commensurate with the City's. Ms. Thomas asked if the shares are based on the distribution of the people who use the service. Ms. White responded affirmatively. The City is paying a larger share in its budget based on the level of service. Ms. Thomas stated that she would like to have this item placed on the list for further discussion. This is a program which helps people find child care, and home child care is the most common way to find it.in.this community. This program is a very valuable resource in the community. Ms. Humphris wondered what dollar amount was involved. Ms. White replied that it will be an additional $5,636. Piedmont Virginia Community College: Requested, $8,284; recommended, $8,284. Ms. White said PVCC is not on the list because it is basically on a contractual basis. The request is for a 13.3 percent increase for a total request of $8,284. The shares are based on the previous two years of student enrollment plus an inflation rate. For the past four years an increase has not been requested in the allocation, because it was felt the County was funding the College's capital needs, and College officials did not want to ask for even a small increase. It looks like a large percentage increase this year, but it reflects an adjustment that has not been made during the past four years. PARKS/RECREATION AND CULTURE Jefferson-Madison Regional Library: Requested, $1,621,589; recommended, $1,621,589. Donna M. Selle, Director, was present. Ms. White commented that the total Regional Library budget is approximately $2,713,153. The total County request is $1,621,589, which is a three percent increase over the current year, or an additional $47,707. She referred to the top of Page 206 which she said may be confusing because it is not a three percent increase over the revised amount. It is a 4.6 percent increase over the adopted amount. However, she recalled that last year Library representatives came back after the budget was adopted and requested an increase of approximately $24,000 which funded a Library Assistant's position at Northside. This is reflected in the revised'amount, so when the request is considered over the revised amount, it is a 3.03 percent increase. The Library's operating budget includes a four percent compensation increase, $10,000 for contractual services for computer work stations, $30,000 for automation consultant fees to help develop a new system for circulation, a four percent rent increase at Northside and some additional line charges in the Monticello - AW project. There are no expanded or new requests for any additional positions. The County Executive recommends funding the County's share of the Library's request at $1,621,589. There were no questions for Ms. White. Virginia Discovery Museum; Requested, $13,000; recommended, $8,555. Peppy Linden, Executive Director, was present. Ms. White said the Virginia Discovery Museum requested $ 13,000 from Albemarle County, which is an additional $1,540 over the current year's allocation at $11,460. The allocation for the current year represented $6,460 for baseline ongoing funding, and the County gave the Museum an additional $5,000 in transitional funds. She referred to the budget discussion on Page 207 which indicates that the critical issue is that the County's required funding to match the Perry Foundation ended in the 1993-94 fiscal year. The next fiscal year the County approved approximately $12,000 in transitional funds, and last year there was an additional $5,000 in transitional funds. The request this year does not request baseline funding but includes the transitional funds. The County Executive has recommended funding of $8,555 March 13, 1996 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 28) 000237 for the Museum which is a three precept increase. The funding includes approximately $6,655 for baseline funding and another $1,900 which is from the Virginia Commission of the Arts. She noted that the additional amount for the transitional funding was not recommended. Ms. Thomas said she would like to increase the funding in some way, and she asked that the item be put on the list for further discussion. Although the recommended funding is the way this Board decided the matter would be handled, she thinks this item deserves some discussion about its value in the community. Piedmont Council of the Arts: Requested, $7,000; recommended, $8,555. Cat Maguire, Executive Director, was present. Ms. White remarked that the total proposed budget for the Piedmont Council of the Arts is $123,333, which is a 15 percent increase over the current year. The total County's share of the requested.budget is $7,000. The recommendation is for an allocation similar to the Discovery Museum, which is a baseline, three percent increase. This increase amounts to $6,655, plus the grant from the Virginia Commission of the Arts. There were no questions for Ms. White. Literacy Volunteers of America: Requested, $13,000; recommended, $13,000. Jacqueline Dugery, Director, was present. Ms. White noted that Literacy Volunteers of America requested $13,000 from the County which is a $1,000 increase over the current year. This expanded request was to expand the tutoring program by adding group instruction which would add the ability to work with more students. There is also an outreach program being proposed that will work with the Neighborhood Team to focus on literacy efforts in some of the targeted areas of the County. It is hoped this program will be working with the County's team approach. The Budget Review Team, as well as the County Executive, has recommended that the Literacy Volunteer's entire budget request be funded at $13,000, which includes the additional funds over the usual three percent increase. Ms. Thomas said she was impressed that volunteers pay a small fee for their teaching materials. This is very definitely a multiplier effect. Ms. Humphris concurred that it is one of the most rewarding programs available to County citizens. WVPT: Requested, $7,000; recommended, $7,000. President, was present. Arthur Albrecht, ~. Ms. White said WVPT Public Television requested the same amount as last year which is $7,000, and it is based on a ten cents per capita funding level. The County Executive recommends funding at the requested level of $7,000. There were no questions for Ms. White. Visitor's Bureau: Requested, $118,780; recommended, $118,780. Bobbye Cochran, Director, was present. Mr. Tucker stated that the FY 1995-96 budget totals $271,950 which is a 5.9 percent increase in the amount of $15,018. This is based on the formula which measures the City's and the County's sales tax and transient tax revenues. The County's share is 54.86 percent of the total budget. The recommended amount will decrease from $118,280 to $109,185, because the Management Board of the Visitor's Bureau reduced the budget based on some one- time costs for brochures, etc., which will be funded out of the Board of Supervisors, fund balance. The adjustment of $9,095 has already been added into the Board members' worksheet. The total recommended amount to be funded is $109,685, which is a 4.5 percent increase. Ms. Thomas referred to the previous figure mentioned by Mr. Tucker of $109,185 as the recommended amount. Mr. Tucker explained that $500 should be added for the new and expanded program for capital costs for concrete repairs. March 13, 1996 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 29) 000238 Ms. Thomas wondered when a discussion would be held concerning the possibility of an increased Transient Occupancy Tax. Mr. Tucker responded that the staff has attempted to study the final language, but it has been impossible to see the corresponding bill, even on the Internet. He has only heard about this matter through media people who have called him. As soon as he gets a copy of the bill, he will bring it to the Supervisors' attention, hopefully at the April meeting. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission: Requested, $72,253; reconunended, $61,561. Nancy K. O'Brien, Executive Director., was present. Ms. White noted that the PDC requested a total of $72,253. She called attention to the chart on Page 227 which showed per capita costs at $37,284; the Legislative Liaison at $15,882; the Sustainability Council at $2,500; the Mapping and Demography Center at $10,692; and the Ride Share Match at $5,895. The Ride Share Match is not a new program, but it is a new program for the PDC that was transferred from JAUNT to the PDC in the current year. In JAUNT's request there is a transfer of the County's support from the JAUNT budget to the PDC's budget. She pointed out that the new expanded program the County is not funding is the Mapping Center which is the $10,692 amount. The County Executive's recommendation funds the total budget of $61,561, which is a regular allocation, plus the money to continue the Ride Share program. The funding for the Mapping Center was not recommended for funding for the reasons previously related to the Supervisors Ms. Thomas requested that $10,692 for the Mapping Center be added to the list for discussion. Jefferson Regional Partnership for Economic Development: Requested, $12,500; recommended, $0. Dr. Deborah DiCroce was present. Ms. Humphris read a letter from the Thomas Jefferson Partnership for Economic Development, which is the new name for the Jefferson Area Economic Development Association. The letter asked for the budget request from the Partnership be withdrawn, and as the Partnership progresses, it will be in communication with Albemarle County. (See letter to Ms. Humphris, from the Thomas Jefferson Partnership for Economic Development, dated March 12, 1996.) Charlottesville Transit Service: Requested, $115,200; recommended, $45,200. Helen H. Poore, Executive Director, was present. Ms. White reported that Albemarle County's share for bus service for FY 1997 is $45,200. This is a $7,000 increase. This increase is to cover the reduction in federal funds the City is experiencing for the CTS system. The request maintains the current level of service on Routes 7 and 9 and holds the line on expenses except for the three percent merit pool the City will be proposing. CTS submitted a new expanded request for operational costs associated with extending the bus service to Wal-Mart at a County cost of $50,000. The total cost for the new route would be $70,000 which would be offset by a potential $20,000 increase in ridership income. She added that Ms. Poore has furnished some additional information, and although it is not firmly defined, there is a proposition that the City may.be able to fund both the Wal-Mart and Pantops deStinations for a total of approximately $50,000. This is still in the negotiating stage, and it will require the approval of City Council. She hopes to bring the Board members more information on this item at their next meeting. Mr. Martin said he would like to see the Pantops Route added. One of the reasons he did not support the Wal-Mart route is because the Pantops route could not be done at that time. Ms. Humphris requested ridership numbers to support the dollar amounts shown in the budget request. Ms. Thomas asked if this item was already on the Board members' list for further discussion. Ms. Humphris confirmed that it was included on the list. March 13, 1996 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 30) 000239 Monticello Area Community Action Agency: Requested, $48,823; recommended, $47,165. Kenneth Ackerman, Executive Director, was present. Ms. White said MACAA has requested a 2.3 percent increase in County funding for a total request of $46,823. The additional funding is primarily for a three percent cost of living adjustment. There are some additional funds requested from the City, but there are no expanded or new requests for Albemarle County. The County Executive supports the recommendation of the Budget Review Team which is for a three percent increase to MACAA, for a total allocation of $47,165. Ms. Thomas wondered how the community will handle the~ decreases in programs that the federal government is probably not going to fund, such as the summer youth programs and job training programs. Although the County cannot pick up all of these programs, this action decreases the number of people served, and it should be noted that these services are disappearing from the community. Someone should be requesting more funding, rather than letting these programs disappear. Ms. White responded that there has not been a clear understanding of what is going to be funded at either the state or federal levels. Ms. Thomas mentioned that there were various newsletters at the NACo meeting suggesting this funding was not looking good. Mr. Martin stated that he has not been hearing very good predictions either but, at this point, they are still predictions. Mr. Bowerman commented that the federal government is decreasing funding, which is being done to balance the budget. The funds being spent in the localities have been borrowed funds. He pointed out.that in order to keep the funds at the same level, it will not just be a situation of cost shifting. If the localities pick up these programs, it will be a net increase in taxpayers' spending. This is not money taken from the County that was going to the federal government and coming back. He emphasized that it was never taken from the County. The County was only borrowing it. He went on to say it doesn't seem right that the funding for MACAA is not that great, because of the services it provides for the community. Ms. Thomas stated that Mr. Bowerman's analysis is true of every federal dollar spent, so it is not as though it relates only to these programs. It is only a portion of these federal dollars which the County is not paying out of its federal taxes. Mr. Bowerman commented that the programs being cut are to balance the budget. Ms. Thomas responded that this is the federal government's political decision, and the decision was not made because the County has not been paying for these programs all along. She does not know of anything the County can do at this time, but she sees this as a huge problem in the future. This whole budget is acceptable for this community if it is business as usual. However, it is not acceptable if there is going to be a very changed picture for the kinds of federal programs the community has been receiving. Maybe the major problems won't arrive until next year at this time, but there will probably be requests from summer youth programs, as well as others, coming to this Board. The Supervisors are going to have one of the smallest contingency funds they have ever had, if they follow the suggestion of funding things on the list. Mr. Marshall stated that the Supervisors need to keep some money in reserve. Ms. Thomas said it will be a small reserve amount. Albemarle Housing Improvement Program: Requested, $358,845; recommended, $357,110. Theresa Tapscott, Executive Director, was present. Ms. White remarked that AHIP has requested a total allocation of $358,845, which is a 3.5 percent increase. This amount is shared between AHIP's Administration Program, Housing Rehabilitation Program, Emergency Repair and the Rental Housing Program, which is a new program. She mentioned that the Rental Housing Program will have two approaches. One approach is to provide technical construction services to property owners who wish to rehabilitate their own property. The other approach will be for property owners to pursue rental property of their own to manage and provide to low income residents. AHIP also has a New Home Construction/Sales Program, as well as the Neighbors Program. The County Executive supports the recommendation of the Budget Review Team to provide a three percent increase to AI{IP for a total County allocation of $357,110. There were no questions for Ms. White. March 13, 1996 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 31) 000240 Mr. Tucker announced that Ms. White was distributing information with firm numbers from the state as to how its funds are going to be distributed. He stated that through this budget process and his recommendations in the transmittal letter, he has indicated that if the County received additional funds from the state, his whole intent, as it relates to the Composite Index or any hold harmless type of funds, would be to get the funds restored. To fully restore the funds, other initiatives have to be examined, but those kinds of initiatives happen anyway. He suggested the Supervisors reduce their transfer to the schools by the amount of $452,904. That would mean the amount of $111,526, still shown in the other initiatives, will still flow back to the school system. Even if there was not a problem with the composite index, this same situation would have happened anyway, because it happens every year. He is sure some of the Board members are wondering if they should hold on to the entire amount, and he has no problem with that. Mr. Marshall said he agrees with Mr. Tucker's recommendation. Mr. Tucker remarked that he has already informed the Superintendent and the Chairman of the School Board that this is his recommendation if funds are received from the state. Mr. Martin asked Mr. Tucker to explain his proposa% again. Mr. Tucker said his recommendation is to transfer to the schools the full amount indicated, and the transfer coming from the General Fund would be reduced by $452,904. This amount goes into the Board's reserve fund. However, $111,526 would flow back to the school system. Mr. Tucker next mentioned the concerns by Board members of articles in the newspaper relating to the School Board meeting with regard to sustainability. He has examined the action letter which indicates the actual action this Board took in the fall of last year on the high school sustainability issue. There were several items tied to sustainability issues in the action letter. He highlighted the word, ~acknowledged," because a lot of the County citizenry thought that the Board of Supervisors had actually appropriated $2,000,000 for sustainability. He emphasized that the Supervisors have never appropriated anything with regard to sustainability, but they acknowledged that an architect and others had indicated that $2,000,000 may be needed for sustainability improvements and design. The study was being done to determine what items would be feasible with regard to sustainability design. Now this amount is known, and the request will be coming to the Supervisors from the School Board. He noted that it is already known that the project will be over the budgeted amount and he thinks this is why Mr. Reaser is suggesting that additional funds be requested up front. However, he noted that when this is done, the bidders become aware that there are going to be some additional funds and they could skew their bid. He suggested that perhaps the Supervisors wait, as far as~additional funds are concerned, until the bids are received. The additional amount of funding may even be more than is projected. Mr. Huff remarked that he is unclear whether the Supervisors want to put the amount of $74,492 pertaining to the firefighters on the list for discussion, or if it is something they want to deal with later. Ms. Humphris answered that she would like the item on the list for further discussion. Mr. Huff then mentioned the implementation for the new pay plan. He said Mr. Hendricks had indicated in his study that the amount budgeted is not enough for a 4.5 percent pool. This amount has been refigured, and the amount for general government is $192,250 and the amount for the school system is $35,000. Mr. Marshall said the Supervisors only agreed to this plan in principle. Mr. Huff concurred, although no figures have been decided on as yet. He is suggesting that this is an issue for discussion at some point. It is new to the list today, and he is just calling the Supervisors attention to it. Mr. Tucker stated that this plan helps get those individuals on the scale, who are not already on it. Otherwise, they will not even be on the entry level of the scale. Mr. Huff stated that one of the issues with the amount budgeted today is that it has been estimated that there are about 65 people who will not reach the minimum of the new scale with the funding built into the budget already. Mr. Bowerman asked if it would take one or two years before these people reach the scale. Mr. Huff said it will be one year. With this amount of money, there will still be approximately 32 who won't reach the scale in one year. The school system only has four people who will not reach Board of County Supervisors 000241 March 13, 1996 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 32) the minimum because their salaries were much closer to the new scales than local government employees. The additional money will get a larger number of people up to the minimum. Mr. Bowerman asked if the additional money will mean that instead of there being 65 people not on scale, there will only be 30 people in this category. He inquired if the $192,250 only brings approximately 30 people up to the minimum. Mr. Huff answered that it provides approximately a 4.5 percent pool, and when this pool is applied to the formula, it brings 30 additional people up to scale. Mr. Tucker explained that the schools had more built into their salaries, and that is why they only needed approximately. S35,000 to move their employees up to the scale. The School Board can probably find this amount in its budget, plus the state will be funding some more money for salaries for the school system. Mr. Bowerman stated that he thinks the $192,250 should be added to the list, because there are some people who will not be on the scale without this extra funding. Agenda Item No. 3. BOARD. There were none. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the Agenda Item No. 4. Adjourn. With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 4:27 p.m.