Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-03-18 adj 000263 March 18, 1996 (Adjourned from March 13, 1996) (Page 1) An adjourned meeting of the Board 'of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on March 18, 1996, at 1:00 P.M., Room 241, County Office Building, McIntireRoad, Charlottesville, Virginia. This meeting was ad- journed from March 13, 1996. PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman (arrived at 1:05 p.m.), Ms. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr., Mr. Charles S. Martin (arrived at 1:07 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, Assistant County Executive, Roxanne White, and County Attorney, Larry W. Davis. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 1:05 P.M., by the Chairman, Ms. Humphris. Agenda Item No. 2. Budget Work Session: 1996-97 County Budget - Review and Discussion. Mr. Tucker referred to the following new work sheet that was distributed to Board members which included the Beating the Odds program. He asked the Board members to utilize this work sheet with the March 18, 1996 date on it, since it is the latest one. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FY 96-97 WORKING BUDGET Beginning Reserve Fund Less Recommended Reserve for Jail Expansion Less County Executive Recommended Transfer to School Fund to Balance Budget Restored State Funding for Schools NET Beginning Reserve Fund 1,759,~ (200,00 (1,382,89i 452 629,3i County Executive Adjustments Visitor's Bureau Budget Adjustment Total County Executive Adjustments Total Reserve Fund 9,095 9,0! 638,4'. Funded & Unfunded Needs General Gov't. Administration Board of Supervisors County Executive Community Resources Community Resources Personnel Personnel Personnel County Attorney County AttQrn~y Finance Finance Finance Information Services Registrar Implementation of New Pay Plan ~ 4.5%-General Gov't. Funded Membership of Virginia Institute of Government 5,000 Additional funds - Budget Review/CIP 970 Community Outreach - Operating Costs 6,145 Neighborhood Team - Community Resources 4,232 Part-Time Project/Research Manager (.5 FTE) Additional Funds - Staff Development & Training Additional Funds - Leadership & Management 4,000 Training Temporary Part-Time Law Clerk - County Attorney's Office Expanded Paralegal Position (.~ FTE to 1 UTE) 16,2~E Account Clerk II (1 FTE) 27,032 Maintenance costs - CAMA System 11,500 Reassessment Expenses 21,002 Office Assistant III (1 FTE) 31,003 Additional Funds for Presidential Elections & 30,590 Unfunded 192,250 19,086 2,738 8,840 192,2 8~8~ Judicial Clerk of Circuit Court DAC Copy Card System 9,717 March 18, 1996 (Page 2) Commonwealth Atty. Sheriff Sheriff Sheriff Sheriff (Adjourned frO~ ~ i~; 1996) salary supplement for Gibbs 8,172 Guns & Ammunition 6,933 Move Deputies to New County Pay Plan 20,000 Re-assignment of Scottsville Deputy to County (4,127) Duties Part-Time to Full-Time Deputies 37,546 000264 Public Safety Police Police Police Police Police Police Police Police Police Police EOC EOC EOC Fire/Rescue Fire/Rescue Fire/Rescue JCFRA JCFRA JCFRA JCFRA Police Records Clerk (1 FTE) Temporary Part-Time Clerical Help Expanded Property Clerk Position (.5 FTE to 1 FTE) (2) New Police Officers - January Hires (4) New Police Officers - July Hires Cameras and Alternate Light Source Emergency Response Team Equipment Recording/surveillance Equipment Replacement Furniture for Secretarial Area Underwater Evidence Recovery Team Equipment (3) Communications Officer Positions @ 40.8% Director's Salary - EOC Administrative Secretary Position @ 40.8% Training Officer (1 FTE) Fire Prevention Inspector Position (1 FTE) Three Full-Time, Uniformed Fire Fighters (Hired in January) Additional Funds for R&M Equip - Buildings Additional Recruitment & Retention Funds Volunteer Tax Exemption Increase ($4,500 to $5,70O) Fire Company/Squad Funds - In Excess of 3% 13,389 92,270 265,593 33,231 29,845 5,983 30,792 7,000 2,880 14,020 21,552 10,203 19,800 4,981 7,000 8,000 19,119 32,364 74,492 88,680 Human Development Social Services Social Services Social Services Social Services Social Services United Way Beating the Odds Bright Stars CYFS Free Clinic Literacy Volunteers Salvation Army Madison House SHE Teensight Family Services/Schools Social Worker (1 FTE) Foster Care/Adoption Social Worker (1 FTE) City/County/Greene Social Worker (.33 FTE) Employment Services Coordinator (1 FTE) Management Analyst II - (w/$10,502 Federal offset) Funds for (2) Additional Day-Care Scholarships Beating the Odds Local Match Additional Funds for Child Care Resource & Referral Contribution Group Neighborhood Initiative Community Assessment Pgm. (CAP) Additional Funds to Meet Request Additional 3% over FY96 Additional Funds for School Liaison Worker Service Hours 28,445 39,136 37,480 43,241 6,240 5,000 1,000 31,507 11,410 39,405 4,000 Parks, Recreation & Culture Parks & Recreation Parks & Recreation Parks & Recreation Discovery Museum Visitor's Bureau Neighborhood Team - Parks & Recreation 6,451 Top Dresser 7,055 Milton River Access Gate Opener Additional Funding Funds for Structural Repairs to Visitor's Center 500 2,573 Community Development Planning Office of Housing Office of Housing Zoning CTS TJPDC TJPDC GIS Implementation Program 25,000 Expanded Training Expenses 4,350 Expanded Housing Specialist (.5 FTE to 1 FTE) 14,632 Code Compliance Equipment 1,200 Bus Service to Wal-Mart/Pantops Mapping Center Rideshare Match - New Program 5,895 48,000 Capital Program JABA Region Ten Senior Facility Contribution New Building Contribution 72,000 150,000 10,2 74,4 31,5 1,7: 2, 2,5~ 2,5( 40,0~ March 18, 1996 (Adjourned fr°m ~ 131 i996)~ (Page 3) Total BOS Changes - General Government ~ 000 65 919,032 905,546 364,42 Remaining Reserve Fund 273,98 Total BOS Changes - School Division TOTAL RESERVE FUND 273 Mr. Tucker said the agenda sent to the Board earlier began with some issues which could affect the bottom line of the budget deliberations today, depending on action taken by the Supervisors. There were three requests received, involving one from Region Ten recently, as well as one received several months ago from JABA for its building program. He said there was also a request for funding of the At-Risk Four Year Old Program. He next asked Ms[ White to briefly review the first two items. Ms. White stated that the first request is a different version of Region Ten's request. The main reason for this request is that Region Ten was asked to leave the Macklin Building because it was being sold. She added that Region Ten representatives have found a new building, and they have proceeded to move ahead with a purchase agreement with the Nations Bank headquarters on Preston Avenue. She noted that they have proceeded with the renovations and are actually moving into the space. The project will cost approximately $2,800,000, and there is a Perry Foundation matching grant of $500,000. She stated that Region Ten representatives propose to match this with $200,000 in donations and fund raising, and they have requested $150,000 from the City of Charlottesville, as well as the County of Albemarle. She next called attention to Page Two of the work session packet which showed the scenario of Phase II of the renovation as being $1,000,000. However, she noted that the updated information shows Phase I and Phase II as being broken down into $1,500,000 for Phase I and $1,200,000 for Phase II. She noted that it is really one project, but the request from local and matching funds is approximately $1,000,000 out of the $2,800,000 which will not have to be borrowed nor will it be mortgage money. She mentioned that there are two different scenarios involved. She said one examines the corrected version of Phase I and Phase II. She emphasized, though, that the County is really being asked to contribute $150,000 which will go toward Phase I, as well as Phase II, but it is a matching grant with the Perry Foundation. She pointed out that Mr. Peterson, representing Region Ten, is present to answer any specific questions on Region Ten's funding and its purchase arrangements, should there be questions from the Board members. She remarked that the second phase of the renovation will add approximately 10,000 square feet to the building which will allow Region 10 to have all its operations in one centrally located spot. Mr. Tucker suggested that the Board members may want to discuss the Jefferson Area Board for Aging (JABA) capital request at the same time they are discussing Region Ten. He said, even though they are two separate requests, there is a policy issue involved in terms of f.unding, since both requests are for capital needs. He asked Ms. White to briefly review the JABA request. Ms. White recalled that JABA representatives' original request in March of 1995 was to ask the County to share in the funding for the new Adult Healthcare Center which is being built near Branchlands. The request was discussed by this Board both at the March 1 and the April 5, 1995 meetings. However, at the April 5 meeting it was agreed by this Board that a contribution would be made to JABA, but it would be based on the County's percentage of senior citizens in relationship to the region, and it was also contingent on JABA securing contributions from the other localities. She mentioned that the total request was for $200,000 in matching funds from the region, and the County's share with 36 percent of the population being 60 and over, is approximately $72,000. She then referred to a letter of November 28, 1994[ also included with the Board members' informatiQn, involving a request from Gordon Walker noting the particulars about the project and asking if it could be included in the capital budget process. This matter is being brought back to the Supervisors at this time, because the Board will be approving the Capital Improvements Program (CIP), as well as the operating budget. She said, to date, none of the other localities have committed any funds to this project, although · ' ? March 18, 1996 (Adjourned frOm ~6~ ~, 1996) (Page 4) requests have been made to all of them, ~ She stated that bOth of theSe are capital projects which were not included in time to be part of the actual capital budget procedures. It was felt this would be a good time to bring these projects to the Supervisors while they are making their final decisions. Ms. Humphris called attention to the March 1, 1995 Executive Summary concerning the capital request for the Thomas Jefferson Adult Healthcare Center. This summary sets out the reasons why the County has historically not funded capital requests for nonprofit agencies, and it asks a number of questions which are very pertinent to the entire situation. She mentioned that she had heard Tom Vandever, a City Councilor, discussing that the Independence Resource Center representatives were looking for new quarters, and he indicated they may build new quarters. She was unsure if this might result in a request for capital funds. Mr. Tucker stated that the Supervisors can discuss this matter now and determine what they would like to do. However, the purpose of this meeting was to go through the list of programmatic funding items and determine which ones they want to fund. He added that the new items could be moved onto the list and discussed after the other items, and by that time the revenue amount that is left will be known. He said staff members feel, as far as the JABA request is concerned, it should be a shared funding matter with other localities whether it is with the City or the region. He stated that this is the policy issue from his perspective. Ms. Humphris mentioned that a couple of times in the past the Supervisors have agreed on this type of basis for funding, providing that other localities participate according to their fair share. However, the entity representatives then come back to the Supervisors and inform them that the other localities won't participate so they need them to do even more, and this Board is then faced with a real dilemma. She explained that it becomes even tougher, when the other localities don't contribute, because it leaves the entity with nothing unless this County contributes. This Puts the Supervisors in a very difficult situation, even though they are trying to do the right thing. Next, Ms. Humphris said Mr. Tucker has suggested that perhaps the Supervisors need to sort through the list as far as what they want to include in the operating budget and then return to the more recent capital requests. She asked what the other Board members would like to do. No one objected, so Ms. Humphris said the Board would follow Mr. Tucker's suggestion. She then asked if the Supervisors should deal with the items that were put on the short list. Mr. Tucker referred to the At-Risk Four Year Old funding which is a program already in operation at Stone-Robinson Elementary School. This is unrelated to JABA's and Region Ten's request, but it is an item that the Supervisors may want to carry over to the list of items to be considered. Ms. Humphris stated that this is a $39,000 item, and she thinks it should have a very high priority. She would like to see this item discussed. Mr. Tucker commented that all three of the previously mentioned items would be moved to the list of items to be considered. He next asked Ms. White to review the CIP with the Board members and bring any changes to their attention. FY 1996-97/2000-01 Capital Improvement Program Ms. White reported that the CIP has not changed very much since the proposed budget was discussed in the work sessions, and she called the Board members' attention to Page 19 of the work session information. There is one change shown on Page 21 regarding the dollar amount for the Ivy Road bike lanes and streetlights where $46,600 has been added to the total for 1996-97. She next referred to the top of Page 20 showing the Highways and Transportation category. She noted that $514,400 has been deleted, and $561,000 has been added. She remarked that an additional $500,000 was transferred to the CIP from the General Fund, and this is noted in the second block showing the General Fund Appropriation, also on Page 20. She stated that $46,600 went into the General Government CIP Fund. The remaining dollars of the $500~000 went into the third block on Page 20 which is the CIP for the school system, and this will cover the school maintenance and repair projects. March 18, 1996 (Adjourned frOm ~A~ i3, 1996). (Page 5) She stated that some schooI projects were going to be covered with VPSA funds, but they can now be covered by the local~transfer. These are the major changes between the expenditures and the revenues. Mr. Bowerman asked if $453,000 was added to the school division's CIP. Ms. White answered affirmatively. Mr. Bowerman then wondered how much was added to General Government. Ms. White responded that $46,600 was added, which is the increase in the cost of the. Ivy Road Project. Ms. Thomas inquired as to why the amount for the Ivy Road project changed. Ms. Humphris said the information states that this change was due to a new understanding of the County's matching requirements for ISTEA funds. Ms. White explained that this suggestion came about during the discussion of how the ISTEA funds would be used. Ms. White said the other changes that do not affect the total are shown on Page 22, and these are changes in the school projects. She next called attention to a memo from A1 Reaser, Director of Building Services, referring to approximately $1,300,000 in projects. She stated that school officials were estimating they were going to be over budget on some of their larger projects, such as Western Albemarle, Woodbrook, Cale, Brownsville, Crozet, Stony Point and Yancey because of the increased construction costs in bids that were being received. The proposal is to take $1,300,000 off of four other more technical projects such as chiller replacements, a roofing replacement, ADA structural changes and Phase I of the Technology Labs and put this money into the larger projects. Mr. Bowerman asked how money can be taken from the ADA structural changes. Ms. White said the ADA projects are things that could be done. However, everything that is required has already been done, and this is just a postponement of certain projects. Mr. Bowerman verified that this is just a postponement of some of the ADA projects, which will be done at a later phase or year in the CIP program. Mr. Martin referred to Page 20 where $453,000 was being transferred from the General Fund, and the VPSA bonds would not be used. He asked if this will change the debt figures. Ms. White replied that the debt figures would change, but they would not change substantially. She noted that the thought has been to continually increase the General Fund transfer into the school funds so more of the maintenance repair projects'can be paid locally as the projects are done, and funds won't have to be borrowed. She stated, though, that the transfer this fiscal year is helping to make the situation happen much quicker than was originally proposed. She pointed out that the transfer from the General Fund is increasing from $400,000 in 1996-97 to $800,000 in Fiscal Year 2001, so an attempt will be made to increase this transfer each year in order to fund more of the ongoing maintenance projects with local revenues as opposed to borrowing. Ms. Humphris mentioned that she thought a broader discussion was going to be held on the new high school community swimming pool, which is a $3,500,000 facility. She would be more comfortable having such a discussion before the final vote for approval of the budget. She asked if the Board is supposed to vote on the CIP document today. Mr. Tucker answered that the vote for approval will not happen today. He said today the CIP will be finalized, and it will be adopted when the budget is approved. Ms. Humphris inquired if this is the Board's last discussion of this capital budget. Mr. Tucker answered affirmatively. Mr. Tucker asked Ms. White what year the swimming facility would be funded. Ms. White answered that it would be funded during the last year of this recommended CIP. Mr. Tucker said the plan has already been approved, but the Board should now be focusing on the next fiscal year's budget for the CIP. Me stated that Ms. Humphris may still want to have the debate on the swimming pool, but it is really in the last year of the five year-program, so the Board will not be approving the funding for this facility at this point. Ms. Humphris replied that she understands all of this. However, she is bothered by the fact that the discussion to which she referred was never held. She had thought there would be a major discussion about operation costs and liability before it was included in the CIP document. Mr. Martin stated that he did not think this kind of discussion can be held today, because the Supervisors do not yet have all of the information. March 18, 1996 (Adjourned from ~6~ i3, 1996) 000~S (Page 6) Ms. Humphris asked how ~hiS Can be handled. She e~phasized that she does not feel comfortable including such a large project without any discussion, whatsoever.. Mr. Tucker responded that the staff was trying to focus on the next fiscal year, but he understands her concern. It is a five year program, and funding for portions of the project could be included when there may be those Board members who are uncomfortable with it. Ms. Humphris pointed out that there is $275,000 included in Fiscal Year 1996-97, which gets the swimming facility project underway. She stated that it is listed under construction, and she wondered why it wouldn't be shown under architecture or engineering. Ms. White reiterated that the total costs are shown in the very last year. Ms. Humphris asked if Ms. White is referring to the total cost of the school or the pool. Ms. White replied that she is referring to the cost of the pool. Mr. Marshall said it seems to him the money for this project would come from Parks and Recreation. Ms. Humphris stated that it is listed under Parks and Recreation. Mr. Tucker suggested that this matter, as well as certain other items, be brought back to the Board on Wednesday night. He stated that the Supervisors can then finalize next year's CIP tonight, if they are comfortable with it. He emphasized that the issue to which Ms. Humphris is referring would not be funded in next year's budget. Ms. Humphris then asked if an item would be included in FY 1997-98 if it is shown for FY 1997. Mr. Tucker answered, "no." He stated that if an item is listed as FY 1997, it would mean that it is included in the FY 1996-97 budget. Ms. Humphris reiterated that $275,000 for the swimming pool facility is in next year's budget. Ms. White stated that this amount of money is not for the pool. She said it is to construct and irrigate two multi-purpose fields in FY 1997. She added that the $18,500 shown in FY 1998-99 is for the auxiliary gym and in FY 2000-01 there is $3,500,000 included, which is for the indoor pool facility. Ms. Humphris said she understands now, but she did not want anything to slip by without a discussion. Mr. Tucker said the staff would bring some more information to the Board for further discussion on the pool on Wednesday night. Ms. White stated that if there are other items on which the Board members are uncertain, it might be good to have a discussion of all of these things on Wednesday night, since there were no public comments at the public hearing. Ms. Humphris reiterated that after the public hearing, it was decided to have a discussion on the swimming pool facility in the future, but it never happened. Ms. Thomas concurred that there was no actual discussion of this item. Ms. Humphris asked how the Board should proceed with the work session. Mr. Tucker responded that the items in bold print on the far right are the ones the Board agreed to move over to a possible funding scenario. The Supervisors should take each item and decide whether or not they want to fund it. General Government: Tmplem-ntation of New Pay Plan ~ 4.5% . $192,250 Ms. Humphris noted that in the past, Board members have voted on each item separately. Ms. Thomas inquired as to how many people are below scale as far as the new plan for general government employees is concerned. Mr. Huff answered that with the money already budgeted, there will be approximately 65 people below minimum. He stated that a four and one-half percent pool should bring all but 32 of these people up to the minimum without having to do anything special for them. He said just the fact that the pool is larger will create enough money for them to reach their new minimum. Ms. Thomas asked if it takes all of the money shown to do this. Mr. Huff replied that an extra $30,000 was included in this figure for two purposes. He noted that none of the appeals have yet been done, so people who feel as though they have been misclassified have not been through the appeals process. He added that money has been set aside to accommodate some of these, because there will probably be at least a couple of people in this category. The second issue of whether or not everybody should be brought up to the minimum this year has not yet been decided. He stated that if the Board members have strong feelings about this issue, perhaps they should discuss it, March 18, 1996 (Adjourned from ~a~c~ i3, 1996) 000269 (page 7) also. He noted that there are only four people in the school division who are below the minimum. The school officials feel strongly that they want to put their people up to the new minimum, since it will take a very insignificant amount of money to do so. He stated that when the committee members discussed this issue, they suggested that general government should take a two year period to bring its employees up to the minimum, which means there will be some people below minimum this first year. He reiterated that at a four and one-half percent pool, the number of people below minimum this first year will be approximately 32 people. Ms. Thomas inquired if the 32 people to whom Mr. Huff referred is part of the 65 figure. Mr. Huff answered affirmatively. He went on to explain that approximately $20,000 has been put into the $192,250 figure. This is the $30,000 difference between a four and one-half percent pool and money for appeals, as well as money if the decision is made to bring everybody up to the minimum this year. He stated that this decision could be made later as the Board gets into some of the policy ramifications. Mr. Bowerman indicated that heis confused. He thought without $192,250 budgeted, there would be 65 people below minimum. However, with the $192,250 there will still be approximately 32 people below minimum. He then asked how much of the $192,250 figure relates to these 32 people. Mr. Huff answered that all but $30,000 of this figure is for these people. Mr. Bowerman then inquired if this amount of money is flowing just to the 32 people, or if it is part of the four and a half percent pool. He also wondered if there would be other increases, as well. Mr. Huff replied that $162,250 funds four and one-half percent of the midpoint, and it is part of the formula for everybody. He said nobody would get anything special with this formula. Mr. Bowerman asked, if by doing this, other employees would also be brought along, but these 32 people would be brought up to the minimum. Mr. Huff responded that 33 people would be brought up to the minimum. However, 32 people would still be left who would not be up to the minimum. He stated that $20,000 would put these 32 people up to the minimum and then $10,000 was set aside for the potential appeals. Mr. Marshall asked about the commonality issue with this pay plan. He added that it appears everybody in the school system is going to be fine, but some people in general government are being left out of the plan, in terms of the minimum, for another year. Mr. Huff stated that he would use police officers as an example to explain to Mr. Marshall how the plan works, since this is the department with the largest number of people doing similar work who will be below the minimum. He commented that as it is today, using the amount budgeted, there are people slightly below minimum. However, there are some people a lot below minimum, which is partially because of prior years' performance. He stated that it is not because they were poor performers, but a score of 85 or 90 percent on the performance evaluation can make a difference. The person who was getting 90 percent got a bigger raise each year, so there was some separation in the salaries. He explained that if a policy decision is made to put everybody up to the minimum this year, it puts the people who had been differentiated because of their performance in the past on the same scale and starts them over again. This means that all of these people have been effectively compressed at the beginning step of the scale, and as new people are brought in, they will be making the same money with no recognition to the effect it will have on their salary. He stated that the Committee's recommendation was to leave people below the minimum, if it was necessary, to keep their relative distance from each other. However, in two years with a reasonable pool in the second year, it would bring them up to the minimum. He stated that there would still be some distance between them and new employees who would be at a false minimum for two years to keep them below anybody who was already in the organization. This makes a lot of sense, although some people think it is unfair if they are below the minimum. He added that a counter remark is that the plan cannot all be done at once. But, it can be done in two years, so everybody will not be compressed and people will not be concerned about the compression. Mr. Tucker stated that the situation will be worked out with school officials where whatever positions are moved up to the minimum, they will be one and the same with general government. March 18, 1996 (Adjourned from ~a~j~ 13, 1996) (Page 8) 0002'70 Mr. Martin added that in reality the $192,250 would bring everybody up to minimum, but County officials are consciously deciding not to do so. He said $160,000 is all that will be spent, and the extra $20,000 will be set aside plus $10,000 for the appeals. Mr. Huff answered affirmatively. He stated that this plan is being budgeted from midpoint, but because of everybody not being up to minimum the first year, it was necessary to leave a little bit of cushion. He said as people are put into departmental pools, the money is not a significant amount. He explained that this is another reason for not budgeting down to the dollar and including the benefits involved. He added that the reason the consultant's figure was different from the staff's is because he was working with figures as of last October, and the staff is working with numbers as of three weeks ago, plus benefits. He said another six weeks from now there will be a different pool of people as former employees leave the organization and new ones Come in and positions change. The numbers will'continue to move slightly as time goes on. Mr. Bowerman commented that it appears the staff members are saying they don't want to implement the plan over one year, because some of the people who are below minimum are consciously there based on a management decision, since they scored below other people. Mr. Huff said these people are not below minimum for that reason, but they are separated from their peers for that reason. Mr. Tucker stated, though, that this is the way it worked out. Mr. Bowerman said it seems Mr. Huff is saying this may be appropriate. Mr. Bowerman stated that during the next year these employees will either be gone through attrition, or they will be gone because they did not meet the County's standards, or they will be up to the minimum. Mr. Huff stated that this is correct. Mr. Bowerman remarked that he thinks this is an excellent reason to spread the plan over a two year period. At this time, Mr. Martin offered a motion, seconded by Mr. Bowerman to include $192,250 on the list of budget items for implementation of the new pay plan for County employees. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, and Ms. Humphris. None. County Attorney's Office: Temporary Part-Time Law Clerk - $8,840 Ms. Humphris inquired if the Board wished to discuss the position of temporary part-time law clerk in the County Attorney's Office. Motion was offered by Ms. Thomas, seconded by Mr. Martin, to add $8,840 to the FY 1996-97 budget for a temporary part-time law clerk. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, and Ms. Humphris. None. Commonwealth Attorney's Office: Salary Supplement for Gibbs - $8,172 Mr. Martin stated that the $8,172 for the salary supplement in the Commonwealth Attorney's Office was included in the County. Executive's budget in the beginning, and he wondered about the rationale behind this item. Ms. Thomas remarked that she was the one who asked that this item be deleted. Mr. Tucker explained that the Board had taken action to supplement the other assistant in this office at an earlier time, and the staff saw a similar situation occurring with this request. Mr. Martin wondered how much supplement was given to the other person. Mr. Huff said it was approximately $7,000 plus benefits for the first person's supplement. Mr. Martin asked if this request represented approximately the same thing. Mr. Tucker answered affirmatively. March 18, 1996 (Adjourned from MarCh 13, 1996) (Page 9) 00027 . Mr. Marshall mentioned that there has not been much turnover in the Commonwealth Attorney's office during the last year. Ms. Humphris said she was a little concerned about this request, but not so concerned to ask that it be deleted. She explained that her concern lies in the fact that people continue to ask for these types of things after they have assured this Board that there will be no similar future requests. She wondered how many constitutional officers will the Supervisors be asked to supplement in the future. Ms. Thomas commented that she thinks supplementing the constitutional officers is risky, but the Supervisors are in a position to stop it. She said it does not have to be automatic. Mr. Martin noted that when the matter of the first supplement was brought before this Board, it was a time when some people in the City office had left. He said City officials were offering a certain amount of money, and it was feared that it might attract the County's Assistant Commonwealth Attorney to go there. He stated that the money supplement given to the assistant at this time was similar to the amount the City was offering. He pointed out that the supplement was approved because this person is a good assistant to the Commonwealth Attorney. Mr. Martin said, in his opinion, the person to whom this salary request refers, also does an excellent job. He mentioned that if someone is in the Commonwealth Attorney's office who is not qualified, it could ruin the whole court system. He explained that this person is usually primarily in Juvenile Court or the Circuit Court and will take care of 90 percent of the cases in a particular court. He said it is important to get good people and keep them in the Commonwealth Attorney's Office. Mr. Bowerman stated that he would like to put the emphasis on Domestic Relations and Juvenile Court where this person is primarily working. Ms. Thomas remarked that she is unaware of the quality of these people, and she wouldn't want this to be taken as an attack on an individual person. She thinks, though, this Board is supplementing salaries in a situation where the Compensation Board is supposed to be supporting these people. She stated that with the present Commonwealth Attorney being of the same political party as the Compensation Board members and the Governor, it is a good chance for him to get this money from the Compensation Board. She said if this Board approves these supplements, there will be no need for the Compensation Board to improve the salaries. She thinks the Supervisors are taking on an increasing local burden for an office that is not a local office. She said it is the principle of the matter, and has absolutely nothing to do with the individual people. She reiterated that she does not know one person from the other in this office, so there is no way in which she is attacking any individual person. Mr. Martin noted that he is not showing favoritism to any particular person either, but he is trying to move forward the concept for the need to have qualified people in the Commonwealth Attorney's Office. He stated that for every person arrested by a police officer in Albemarle County, there will be a citizen who needs a Commonwealth Attorney. He said whether or not this citizen gets a qualified Commonwealth Attorney or one who is not so qualified, will probably depend on this Board to supplement the salaries in that office. Mr. Bowerman said it is clear there are inequities throughout the State based on demographics and population size that State officials are not going to address. He went on to say it is also clear that Albemarle County is growing, and it has some needs that are outpacing the averages in the state. He stated that the State Compensation Board may be in a position to reward everybody across the state, but he does not see this happening. He agreed with Ms. Thomas, though, that this is a policy decision, but he thinks it is one that is working against the County, and local officials are going to have to address this fact. Mr. Martin commented that philosophically speaking, the Commonwealth Attorney's Office deals directly with the taxpayers who fund County government, even though technically it is not something the County funds. He said if a County citizen is a victim, the Commonwealth Attorney's Office is this person's attorney. He remarked that citizens who receive services from the Commonwealth Attorney's Office are not going to think of the fact that March 18, 1996 (Adjourned from March 13, 1996) 000~2 (Page 10) this does not reflect on the Board of SuPervisors because the Commonwealth Attorney's Office is funded by the Compensation Board. He said citizens are going to believe that they pay their taxes, and they deserve a good attorney when they are victims. He added that if citizens do not receive competent counsel, they are going to look to the Supervisors and wonder why. Ms. Thomas said she understands the argument. However, she pointed out that this is the same situation that Albemarle County has with the Health Department and the local roads. Mr. Martin agreed. Mr. Marshall stated that he will support leaving the $8,172 in the budget because he feels the efficiency of this department has to be maintained. He would hate to think this Board was responsible for losing this efficiency, and in the long run it could cost additional funds. He noted that any businessman will acknowledge that, should a person have to be replaced because he is a good employee and he is not being paid enough, just the time of training the new employee alone costs a tremendous amount of money. Mr. Martin stated that the first request was tied to the person and not the position, and he thinks this request should be handled in the same manner. He definitely does not want the Supervisors to continue to provide this compensation for someone who may not be providing good service. Ms. Humphris remarked that she is undecided on this matter because philosophically she agrees with Ms. Thomas' remarks. This is a risky matter which is a great concern of hers because there are going to be more and more such requsts in the future. However, she stated that in this situation she will support this request because the service is directly related to the County citizens and whether or not they get good service could depend on the quality of this person. She emphasized, though, that she is supporting the supplement only for this particular individual. Ms. Thomas asked if a motion is needed to tie the money to the individual rather than the position. Mr. Tucker stated that he would prefer that this be in the form of a motion. Mr. Bowerman commented that he thinks the money should go with the position, because things happen and people change. He would like to be able to get somebody equally qualified. Ms. Thomas pointed out that this town is full of attorneys. Mr. Martin concurred that this town is full of attorneys, but not all of them provide good services. Ms. Humphris mentioned that she does not know either employee, but according to the Commonwealth Attorney's comments, as well as some of the other Board members, these two people have proven themselves in their positions. They are not new people who have had to be lured with a higher salary, but they have proven themselves worthy of being retained in their positions. She stated that she thinks this makes a difference. Mr. Martin agreed with Mr. Bowerman's comments, particularly if the position was vacant and had to be advertised. Mr. Tucker stated that in reality, no matter who the Commonwealth Attorney happens to be in the future, he or she will probably come back to this Board with a similar request. He believes this will be true even if the supplement is tied to the individual. He stated that when the person moves on and the Commonwealth Attorney is advertising for someone else, he or she is not going to say that the person is not worthy of the supplement. Mr. Martin noted that he would not be able to make the same remarks about other attorneys in the Commonwealth Attorney's Office. He emphasized, though, that it is not because they are not great attorneys, but he does not know anything about them. At this time, Mr. Martin made a motion to include in the FY 1996-97 budget the $8,172 salary supplement for Assistant Gibbs in the Commonwealth Attorney's Office, and that this supplement be tied to the person presently holding the position and not to the position, itself. Mr. Bowerman stated that he would support the motion, but from another point of view. The County is looking for the best representation it can get for people who have been victims of crime and domestic violence. He stated that he is really interested in approving the supplement for the position, and March 18, 1996 (Adjourned from March 13, 1996) 000~y~ (Page 11) he will vote for the motion, even though it is not specific. However, he believes there will be future requests. Mr. Marshall said he agrees with Mr. Bowerman, and he wondered if Mr. Martin wanted to amend his motion. Mr. Bowerman pointed out that the motion had not been seconded. Mr. Marshall then seconded the motion, and he asked if he could amend the motion so the supplement amount would not be tied to the individual. Mr. Perkins stated that he will not support the motion, if it is amended. Mr. Marshall then withdrew his comment relating to an amended motion, and seconded the motion as it stands. ' ~ . Mr. Perkins stated that local officials have been trying to send a message to the state for several years. He said state officials should fund the consitutional officers at an adequate level, and they haven't done so. The County is faced with the Same thing with the Sheriff's Department as well as any other constitutional office. If compensation for these departments is supposed to be handled in this manner, then the localities should be so informed. He noted some of the problems with the Compensation Board, and he said appropriate funding for constitutional officers should be done by the state or the whole system needs to be changed. He stated that for the County to add supplements is piecemeal, and it affects one individual versus another individual. Mr. Martin commented that it sounds as though Mr. Perkins feels the same way as Mr. Marshall and Mr. Bowerman. Mr. Martin noted that his motion was to tie the supplement to the person and not the position. Mr. Perkins reiterated that he will support the motion only in its current standing. He said in this way, he hopes the county will be paying for the quality it is getting. Ms. Humphris clarified that Mr. Perkins is saying he would not support the motion if it was all inclusive. She then asked the Clerk to call the roll. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Bowerman, and Ms. Humphris. NAYS: Ms. Thomas. Sheriff: Reassi.,~nment of Scottsville Deputy to County Duties & Sheriff: Part-time to Full-time Deputies Mr. Marshall stated that the reassignment of the Scottsville deputy and the part-time to full-time deputies items need to be discussed together, since the amount of $37,546 shown for the part-time to full-time deputies is also needed for the reassignment of the Scottsville deputy. He stated that the $4,127 for the Scottsville deputy would then be subtracted from the $37,546. Ms. Humphris pointed out the recommendation from the staff which indicated that given the identified need for additional manpower in Juvenile Court, the staff felt that the agreement with the Town of Scottsville had served its purpose to allow Scottsville to get on its feet following its boundary adjustment and that the manpower could be best utilized in Juvenile Court which would serve the entire County for a relatively modest cost. She agrees with the staff's recommendation on this matter. She really thinks when the Supervisors indicated last year that this would be the last time they would fund this item, they have to mean what they say. These items can't keep coming back year after year. She stated that it is her belief that it is really important for this agreement to be kept to just one year. Mr. Bowerman inquired if the cost would be approximately $33,000, if both of these recommendations are accepted. Ms. Humphris answered affirmatively. Mr. Marshall noted that the Sheriff and Mayor went to the Compensation Board and fought for these positions, and no one else in the County did so. He pointed out that all of this is new to the Town of Scottsville, and the Town needs the support. He is not advocating giving this position to the Town indefinitely, but he thinks it should be approved for one more year to allow March 18, 1996 (adjourned from March 13, 1996) 000~4 (Page 12) the Town officials to plan for it better in their own budget. He went on to say they are wrestling with the boundary adjustment and the additional people who have been hired, as well as the additional need in the area. The area is growing, and the Town representatives feel strongly that this is really their deputy since they are the ones who got him. If the Board does not approve this position, a police officer will have to be sent to that area, and it is going to cost the County one way or the other. Mr. Tucker commented that he thinks the issue relates to whether the County or the Town of Scottsville should fund the position. He understands Mr. Marshall's remarks about the Mayor helping the Sheriff to get this position, but the staff is questioning whether the County or the Town should pay for it. He stated that this matter could be handled separately, because the Scottsville deputy could be reassigned to the County as staff has recommended, and $4,100 would be saved. If this is not done, or if it is left as it is, the $4,100 would have to be added back, because $4,100 is needed to fund the Scottsville deputy. Ms. Thomas disagreed. This amount of money would come from Scottsville. Mr. Martin concurred with Ms. Thomas that the $4,100 would not have to be added back unless County officials want to supplement the amount of bailiffs at Juvenile Court. Mr. Tucker explained that the Juvenile Court supplement for bailiffs is a separate matter. Mr. Huff stated that the Board can approve one or the other of these items but not both. He said if the Supervisors want to move the deputy from Scottsville, it will cost $4,127 to do so, and this was in the recommendation. He stated that if they want to leave the deputy in Scottsville, then to meet the Sheriff's request for additional manpower, there will be a net cost of $37,546. Mr. Martin stated that the Supervisors don't have to approve the $37,546. They could leave the situation as it is. Mr. Huff and Mr. Tucker concurred. Ms. Humphris pointed out, though, that there is a major need in the Juvenile Court. Ms. Thomas stated that the additional deputy's position would not have happened if there had not been the major need in Juvenile Court. The Compensation Board members did not want to start the precedent of putting extra deputies in towns, so they agreed that the County desperately needed extra deputies in the Juvenile Court. However, for a year and a half they and County officials agreed to place this position in the Town of Scottsville which helped the Town when it was in its transition period. Mr. Marshall remarked that Ms. Thomas is making it'sound as though Scottsville officials caused this dilemma. He stated that the whole idea of these positions was conceived by the Mayor or the Sheriff or a combination of the two. The County was not considering these two positions. Ms. Thomas responded that the Sheriff should have been considering them. Mr. Tucker stated that the Sheriff helped pursue the positions. Mr. Perkins said the Sheriff works through the County. He then asked about the financial position of the Town of Scottsville, and he wondered if it receives money from the State for law enforcement. Mr. Tucker answered that Scottsville receives no money, that he is aware of, for law enforcement. Mr. Perkins asked if Scottsville officials have the ability to fund any law enforcement. Mr. Tucker replied affirmatively. He informed Mr. Perkins that Scottsville had a Town Sargeant. Mr. Marshall explained that Scottsville's budget included money for a new police car, radios, etc., and it was funded this year. He said funds for this deputy are not available, though, because it was anticipated that the deputy would be there for one more year. However, it was made very clear the other day that this was not the case. He recalled Mayor Thacker indicating that he thought the position was going to be kept in Scottsville indefinitely, but he now realizes he will be lucky if Scottsville gets this position for one more year. He said Mayor Thacker will not come back and ask for the position again next year. Ms. Humphris commented that she does not understand how anybody who was present last year could have thought this was indefinite. She said it was so clear that the position was just for this year, and she thought the Supervisors said it as clearly as they could possibly say it. March 18, 1996 (Adjourned from March 13, 1996) (Page 13) 000275 Mr. Marshall said if the position is not funded in this manner, an additional police officer will be needed for that end of the County. Ms. Humphris recalled Chief Miller indicating that another officer will not be needed there. Mr. Tucker said Chief Miller feels this area can be covered, although the same level of service will not be provided as it would be with a deputy in place there. He stated that in comparing the workload of the deputies versus the police, he and Chief Miller feel they can get an adequate level of service with the same manpower that is being provided there now. Mr. Marshall said he does not think Scottsville will get adequate service without this deputy's position. He noted that the position has solved a lot of problems such as response times, etc. He indicated that it takes at least 20 minutes for a police officer to get to his own house, and sometimes it takes 30 to 45 minutes. Mr. Perkins asked if Scottsville still has its Town Sargeant. Mr. Tucker responded that Scottsville actually has two deputies, because there was one Town Sargeant before the other deputy was added. He stated that now they are both technically Sheriff deputies, and there would still be one deputy left, if this position is not approved. Mr. Martin stated that he would like to leave these two issues separate, if it is at all possible. He said under one scenario the deputy could continue to be funded in Scottsville for $4,127, but whether or not there is a need for more deputies in Juvenile Court is another matter. He noted that he may have to remove himself from this vote, but not because it is a conflict of interest issue from this Board's point of view. He could get himself in trouble if he is supporting or not supporting something that his superiors may be supporting. He asked again that these issues be kept separate so he can vote on one and not the other. Mr. Marshall stated that, based on Mr. Martin's comments, he will offer a motion to request $4,127 for reassignment of the deputy to the Town of Scottsville. Ms. Thomas remarked that she thought Scottsville was paying the County $4,127 for their share of the deputy's position, so she does not think such a motion is needed. Ms. White explained that if the deputy is transferred to Juvenile Court, this revenue from Scottsville will be lost to the County. Ms. Humphris clarified that the County Executive's budget recommendation is to move the locally funded deputy who is currently assigned to the Town of Scottsville to the Juvenile Court effective July 1, 1996 at a net cost to the County of $4,127. Ms. Thomas said the reason is because the County would not be receiving this amount of money from the Town of Scottsville but it is not because the County has to fund it. Ms. Humphris read from the County Executive's budget recommendation that the net cost represents the loss of some reimbursement for the benefits of this position by the Town of Scottsville, but it is consistent with the signed agreement dated December 21, 1994. Ms. Thomas stated that Mr. Marshall does not need to make his motion. Mr. Marshall said some sort of motion is needed to make this position happen for Scottsville. Mr. Tucker suggested that Mr. Marshall's motion should simply indicate that he supports the continued reassignment of the Scottsville deputy from the County. Mr. Marshall agreed that this would be his motion. Ms. White reiterated that if this decision is made, there will be a revenue increase of $4,127 as opposed to an expenditure. Ms. Humphris clarified that Mr. Marshall's motion is to continue the assignment of the deputy to the Town of Scottsville. She asked if there was a second to the motion. Mr. Martin seconded the motion. 000276 March 18, 1996 (Adjourned from March 13, 1996 (Page 14) Roll was called, and the motion failed by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, and Mr. Perkins. NAYS: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Ms. Humphris. Ms. Humphris asked if anything further needed to be done relating to the Scottsville deputy's position. She noted that the agreement was for the position to end. Mr. Davis concurred. The agreement specifically states that the funding shall end July 1, 1996, so without this agreement, there is no longer an obligation to fund the position. Ms. Humphris then wondered if the reassignment of the Scottsville deputy to County duties would take effect automatically. Mr. Davis replied that there is now a County funded deputy whose responsibility previously was with Scottsville, but who is now available to the Sheriff for anything but the Scottsville position. (At 2:11 p.m., Mr. Martin left the room during the discussion of the Juvenile Court coverage.) Ms. Thomas commented that if more coverage for the Juvenile Court is desired, then the amount of $37,546 needs to be approved. Mr. Tucker answered that the coverage is available anyway, and the Supervisors do not have to approve anything else relating to this situation. He explained that the reassignment of the Scottsville deputy to the Juvenile Court will happen because of the motion that failed. He said no further action is necessary by this Board, unless the Supervisors want to do more than that. Mr. Marshall asked that an explanation be given of how the $37,546 will be used. Ms. Thomas said a motion would be needed to approve the $37,546 only if the deputy was left at Scottsville. Mr. Perkins stated that if the Supervisors want to help Scottsville, perhaps Scottsville could fund $15,000, and the County could fund the position 50 percent. Mr. Tucker concurred that there are lots of scenarios which could be considered. Mr. Perkins asked if Mr. Marshall thought the Scottsville officials might be interested in such an arrangement. Mr. Marshall said, without the Mayor being present at this meeting, he is unsure of his reaction to Mr. Perkins' suggestion. He stated, though, that he thinks Mayor Thacker will be very disappointed with what this Board has done today, but he feels as though Scottsville officials will take anything they can get to help them. Ms. Humphris stated that this Board cannot do anything without knowing how the Scottsville representatives feel about the matter. Mr. Marshall agreed that the Town Council of Scottsville will have to be involved. Mr. Tucker mentioned that the Board could keep some funding in its reserve for Scottsville. He added, though, that if the Supervisors want to do so, they will need to make sure, based on the amount of reserve left when the budget sessions are ended, that funds will be available to earmark half of the Scottsville position. Mr. Marshall pointed out that over $33,000 has been added back to this reserve. Ms. Humphris noted, though, that there are some other major items which have not even been considered, yet. However, she said funding for half of a deputy's position for Scottsville will be kept in mind by the Supervisors. (Mr. Martin returned at 2:16 p.m.) Police: Temporary Part-Time Clerical Help - $21,552 March 18, 1996 (Adjourned from March 13, 1996) (Page 15) 00027'7 Ms. Thomas suggested that all three matters dealing with the Police Department could be discussed at the same time. She stated that $600,000 has already been added to the Police Department's budget this year, and a total of six new officers has been approved. She said it is not as if this Board is not responding to the need for more police coverage. She is of a mind not to approve all three of these requests, but perhaps the one that is the most necessary. She tends to think she would be the most favorable toward the clerical help request because the County will be getting more policemen, but they will be doing clerical work, if there is not enough clerical help. She stated that this is not a good expenditure of County dollars. Ms. Humphris pointed out that Chief Miller has already listed his priorities, the first being the temporary part-time clerical help at $10,203. His second priority was the Police Records Clerk and his third was the Emergency Response Team equipment. However, she believes he can get the amount for the equipment from his budget. Mr. Tucker said he had indicated that an attempt would be made to fund Chief Miller's equipment needs in this current year's budget, and the Board's reserve fund should not be used for this item. Ms. Humphris stated that there are really only two.items needing discussion relating to the Police Department, and they both involve clerical help. She then asked if there was any discussion on the Police Records Clerk position. Mr. Martin suggested that this position be approved. Ms. Thomas asked if Mr. Martin thinks this position is more important than the part-time clerical help. Mr. Martin stated that he was trying to comply with Chief Miller's priorities. Ms. Thomas said she thought Chief Miller had listed the part-time clerical help as his first priority. Ms. Humphris concurred. She would like to fund both of these positions. She feels the Police Department is extremely short on help in record keeping and clerical needs. At this time, Mr. Martin made a motion to approve the position of temporary part-time clerical help in the Police Department at $10,203. Thomas seconded the motion. Ms. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, and Ms. Humphris. None. Mr. Marshall asked if the position of Police Records Clerk is being deleted. Ms. Humphris said she wished it could be funded. Ms. Thomas stated that she would be happy to come back to this item. However, she is not ready to vote for it at this time. Mr. Tucker noted that the amount of $4,981 for Emergency Response Team equipment would be removed from the funding list. Fire/Rescue: Two Full-Time, Uniformed Fire Fighters - $74,492 Ms. Thomas remarked that she had wondered, since this will not go into effect for many months, if it would make any sense to put half the amount for the two full-time uniformed fire fighters in the budget. She asked Mr. Tucker to make the Board aware of his response to this suggestion. Mr. Tucker stated that the staff feels three instead of two full-time uniformed fire fighters are needed. He said that in considering when the aerial ladder will be purchased, and when people should be in place, it will probably not happen before January, so the staff believes a January start date would be realistic for these positions. He stated that it will take $74,492 in order to have three such positions. Mr. Bowerman asked if this amount would make it possible to have two additional uniformed fire fighters every day. Mr. Tucker answered affirmatively. He told Mr. Bowerman, though, that sick leave and vacation time, etc. has to be considered, so it amounts to basically three positions. Next, Mr. Perkins made a motion, seconded by Mr. Martin, to include $74,492 in the FY 1996-97 Albemarle County budget for two full-time, uniformed fire fighters. March 18, 1996 (Adjourned from March 13, 1996) (Page 16) 0002'78 Ms. Thomas inquired as to how much of this figure would be used for start up costs and how much would be ongoing. Mr. Huff replied that $5,000 was budgeted per position for uniforms and the types of things that would be considered start up costs. He added, though, that it is unsure what all of the start up costs are at the present time. Ms. Thomas indicated that these are the types of positions the County is beginning to need. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, and Ms. Humphris. NAYS: None. Social Services: Management Analyst II (w $10,502'Federal offset), $31,507 Mr. Marshall remarked that he thinks the Management Analyst position will be money well spent. He then offered a motion to add funding for $31,507 to the Social Services Department's budget for the Management Analyst II position. Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, and Ms. Humphris. NAYS: None. Beatin~ the Odds, $11,410 Ms. Humphris wondered if further discussion was needed from staff on the Beating the Odds program. Ms. White answered that no additional information is available, and she referred to the information shown in the Program Review Report and the budget summary. The issue with this item is that there are several groups proposing programs relating to teen pregnancy prevention. She stated that the Budget Review Team and the United Way is considering trying to get these groups to work together to reach a consensus as to how to approach this issue. She added that it is hoped they can work together to define a strategy for teen pregnancy prevention and have a unified program rather than different agencies simply coordinating with each other. The recommendation is to take this item back to the CACY Commission for re-examination with the other agencies which are involved. She added that some of these other agencies may involve Camp Horizon, which is one of the proponents of this group, Teen Sight, Project Discovery, and 4-H groups. She stated that the CACY Commission will be asked to consider how this program will fit into a total overall strategy. The recommendatiOn is not to fund the Beating the Odds Program at this time, although the Budget Review Team is not against the idea that there needs to be some funds directed toward the program. However, it is unclear as to what is the best mechanism for directing these funds toward teen pregnancy prevention. Ms. Humphris asked if a suggestion had been made to keep this item in mind in the Board's reserve fund when the mechanism for directing these funds has been clarified. She recalled that the Program Review Report indicates that overall this request was lacking clarity, numeric data and an understanding of the larger picture. Ms. White indicated that she has spoken to the CACY Commission members, and they are basically in agreement that the suggested procedure for more clarification be followed. She said one of the problems with the application, although there has been a group working on this issue for a long time, is that the proposal was put together very hurriedly for the date when the applications were due. She stated that the request needs more clarification and data, and the CACY Commission agrees. Ms. Thomas commented that she had the feeling this project was something to be kept in mind, but not put on the list for funding. She does not know if it would be better to have an amount of money for some particular pregnancy prevention program, or if it can be kept in mind without showing a specific item. Mr. Tucker responded that historically this Board tries to ensure that there is some type of reserve at the end of its budget sessions. There will more than likely be an amount in reserve at the Supervisors' discretion, and it does not have to be tied to anything. He stated that later in the year if they decide to fund a program such as this one, it can be done. He said if March 18, 1996 (Adjourned from March 13, 1996) (Page 17) 000 79 the decision is made at a later time, it may be less than the amount for the full year of $11,410. He added that if the Board members want to reconsider this program sometime in the future, then they should try to ensure that there is a sufficient reserve fund. Ms. Humphris asked if anyone wanted to make a motion on this item. Ms. Thomas suggested that the Board members could go with a consensus that this item be kept in mind, although it is not the same as saying it will definitely be funded. She thinks, though, the Supervisors need to agree that it is a probable need. She suggested that if there are Supervisors who disagree, they should speak up now. No one disagreed with Ms. Thomas. Mr. Tucker said the Beating the Odds program would be taken off the list for the present time. Children, Youth & F~m~l¥ Services: Resource & Referral, $5,635 Additional Funds for Child Care Ms. Thomas said she had asked that this item be put on the list, but after reading further in the Agency Review Report, she gets mixed messages. She said one set of reviewers thought the Children, Youth and Family Services program had done everything asked of it this year in terms of cooperating, coordinating and education. However, another team thought it really had not produced the type of justification and figures to give sufficient support. She is willing not to carry forward with her recommendation, unless others feel strongly that this funding should be added to the budget. There were no further comments from Board members, so this item was taken off the list. Free Clinic: Contribution - $5,150 Mr. Martin said he had asked that the item relating to the Free Clinic contribution of $5,150 be left on the list for further discussion. He stated that the staff recommended an even contribution of $5,000, but he feels the Free Clinic is one of those agencies that has really done a lot for the money it receives from the County. He emphasized that he thinks the Free Clinic deserves the three percent increase that was being given to most of the other agencies. He then made a motion to fund the extra $150 contribution for the Free Clinic. Mr. Marshall seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, and Ms. Humphris. None. Madison House: Additional Funds to meet Request, $925 Ms. Humphris recalled that the question was whether the University has funded the expanded request and, if not, what is its timetable for funding decisions. She said an additional request for $8,000 is submitted each year for a discretionary grant from the Vice President of Student Affairs, but it is not known at this time if this will be forthcoming. Ms. White explained that this is not part of the regular student council allocation. The opinion is that the Vice President of Student Affairs is able to make this decision whenever he wants to, so he may be making it fairly soon. Ms. Thomas pointed out that the County's allocation to Madison House is increasing by three percent. She said when the Vice President is approached about this matter, he can certainly be told that the County is increasing its support, whether or not the additional $925 is added. Ms. White stated that part of the justification Madison House has made to the University is that support is being given to it by both the City and the County. March 18, 1996 (Adjourned from March 13, 1996) 0002~0 (Page 18) Mr. Tucker said he has shared the fact that the County has increased its funding with Mr. Sandridge, and that County officials did not understand why the City was level funding. He stated, though, that he has not heard back from him. Mr. Martin mentioned that the Madison House request could be handled in the same manner as the request from the Beat the Odds program. He said if Madison House representatives want to come back to this Board after discussions with University officials, the Supervisors can make a decision at that time. Mr. Tucker suggested that Board members should keep in mind whether or not they want to fund an additional request that perhaps the City is not doing. He said County officials have always attempted to be consistent in their funding. Ms. Humphris asked if there was a motion, or if the Supervisors wished to pass this item by at this time. There was no response from Board members, so Ms. Humphris indicated that the $925 in additional funds to meet Madison House's request would be removed from the budget. Shelter for Help in __~.ergenc¥: $1,713 Additional three percent over FY '96, Mr. Martin made a motion to keep $1,713 in the County budget which represents an additional three percent over FY 1996 for the Shelter for Help in Emergency. Ms. Humphris asked for the reasons behind this request. Ms. Thomas stated that the other counties and the City are not doing their share. Ms. White explained that the Co'unty is approximately $1,700 above the local share contribution based on the City and other localities, so it was decided to let the other localities begin to catch up by keeping the funding level. Mr. Martin indicated that his argument was that the other localities didn't fund the Free Clinic, but Albemarle County makes shch a contribution. This is a small amount of money, and he feels as though the County can continue to give the three percent to the Shelter regardless of whether or not other localities are doing so. He stated that the Shelter provides a significant service and gets a lot of volunteer money and a lot of volunteer hours for the money the County contributes. He does not have a problem funding the extra three percent. Ms. Thomas seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, and Ms. Humphris. None. Teensight: Additional Funds for School Liaison Worker Service, $200 Mr. Martin stated that he had suggested $200 be funded for a school liaison workers' service hours, but not for salaries. He specifically did not want to be in a position to be funding salaries over and above the three percent being funded to the other agencies. He added that this $200 involves an increase in service of two days. He then made a motion to fund the additional $200 for a school liaison workers' service hours for two extra days. Ms. Thomas recalled that these two days would allow the school liaison workers to do some follow-up work. She seconded Mr. Martin's motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, and Ms. Humphris. None. March 18, 1996 (Adjourned from March 13, 1996) (Page 19) Ms. Thomas mentioned that the Review Team said any funding to Teen Sight, with or without this supplement, should be contingent upon its developing a more coordinated community strategy. She said it has been an ongoing frustration that Teen Sight has not been working with other community agencies. Ms. White stated that Teen Sight will be one of the participants with the CACY Commission to bring all of these programs together. Teen Sight is a little different than the other prevention programs because specific funds have not been requested for this purpose, but such a program is being put together. Ms. Thomas clarified that this funding should not be held up in order to get Teen Sight representatives to work with the community. Ms. White concurred. This is a separate program for the schools. Parks and Recreation: Milton River Access Gate ODener, $2,573 Mr. Marshall remarked that a gate opener for the Milton River access will save some money. He mentioned that if the gate is locked, people cannot go there and dump trash. He also believes there will be savings in other areas. Mr. Martin recalled that this employee will have the duty of locking the gate, but it also allows time for the person to walk through the property periodically. At this time, Mr. Marshall moved that the Milton River Access Gate Opener be kept in the budget for $2,573. Mr. Martin seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, and Ms. Humphris. None. Discovery Museum: Additional Funding, $5,000 Ms. Humphris asked Ms. White to review the additional funding request for the Discovery Museum. Ms. White mentioned the Perry Foundation match which involved an agreement during 1993-94 in which the County had been required to fund approximately $20,000 a year over a five year period, making it a $100,000 commitment. She said in 1994-95 County officials agreed to give the Discovery Museum $12,000 in transitional funding, and in 1995-96 the agreement was for another $5,000 in transitional funding. She stated that this year the request came back with an increase over last year's funding, so the recommendation is to give the Discovery Museum an increase over the base amount, but not to recommend further transitional funding. She said an additional $5,000 has been put on the list, which was done last year for transitional funding. However, the discussion held recently did not stipulate any amount. Ms. Humphris noted the comment in the budget information which stated that the major issue for the County was to determine whether increasing support for the Virginia Discovery Museum is a function of local government or whether the interest and support for this community project, albeit a valid and beneficial one, should come from the community itself. She inquired if Board members wished to discuss this matter. Ms. Thomas made a motion to approve an addition of $5,000 to the Albemarle County budget to be appropriated to the Virginia Discovery Museum. The motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Perkins stated that he thinks the Discovery Museum serves a very educational type function. He thinks the matching funds got the County into this predicament, and now the Museum can't get along without them. He suggested that perhaps the $5,000 could be cut back this year. The revenues March 18, 1996 (Adjourned from March 13, 1996) (Page 20) have to be increased, such as with admission fees, or the costs have to be cut. He added that the programs it provides are very educational and beneficial to the school children, as well as preschool children, so the County does benefit from the Museum. Ms. Thomas inquired if the other Board members had received a letter regarding the Discovery Museum. Most Board members answered that they had received such a letter. Ms. Thomas recalled that last year this Board had suggested that the Discovery Museum representatives go to their members and try to get more money. They got contributions from 911 of their members which shows they are trying to get contributions, but nonprofit organizations have a hard time raising funds. She mentioned that this is an example of an organization that had a generous grant which was matched, and programs were started, and now there are expectations of types of programs which can be brought to this community. She noted that the Discovery Museum brought a Lewis and Clark program here when Charlottesville was the national convention headquarters for the Lewis and Clark conference, as well as other very interesting things of benefit to this community. She noted, though, that all of these things are expensive, so if the County cuts back on its support, these types of programs will not be available. Mr. Martin remarked that he sees this request and the Scottsville request as being similar, but he doesn't have strong feelings about it, one way or the other. Ms. Thomas concurred. The Scottsville decision made her feel awkward with this request, also. Ms. Humphris commented that the question is whether or not this very worthy entity can sustain itself without the ever increasing support from taxpayers' dollars. She recalled that this matter has been discussed ever since she has been on this Board. This was one of her first experiences where the organization indicated it would not get the money, if the County didn't help with the funding, but there would be no such future requests. She stated that ever since then, the request has been coming back to this Board, and it has not worked out the way the Supervisors envisioned. She mentioned that the County had tried to participate in the matchining grant over the years of its existence only to find out that the Museum can't get along without this funding. She said it is difficult because nobody doubts it is a wonderful thing for children as well as'adults. Mr. Martin suggested a compromise of $2,500, although he reiterated he does not have strong feelings about the matter. At this time, Mr. Perkins made a motion to include $2,500 of additional funding in the County's FY 1996-97 budget for the Discovery Museum. Ms. Thomas seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, and Ms. Humphris. NAYS: Mr. Bowerman. Planning: GIS ?mpl,~,ntation Program - $25,000 - Thomas Jefferson Pl~nninq District Commission: MaDDing Center, $10,692 ' Ms. Thomas said she asked that this item be discussed further because of her concern about the Mapping Center and the County's own mapping program. She commented that she had not educated herself well enough to know if it was inconsistent that the Mapping Center would not be funded, and the County would spend two and a half times the amount of money doing its own. She stated that she has educated herself now from talking with people who interact with the County Planning Department, and she is fully convinced that the County needs to get started on a GIS program. She noted that a motion is not needed, because she is not recommending a change. She also thinks it is reasonable for the County not to support the Mapping Center at the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, so she thinks these items should stay as the County Executive has recommended. She mentioned that some time it might be a good idea for the Planning staff to give the Supervisors more information about the GIS Implementation Program. She remarked that Albemarle County is embarrassingly known as the County with very poor maps, and it is impeding the County's planning efforts. March 18, 1996 (Adjourned from March 13, 1996) 000~ (Page 21) Ms. Humphris inquired if Board members wanted to discuss the Mapping Center request. Ms. Thomas said neither of these items require a motion if the Supervisors stay with the County Executive's recommendation, and she suggested that the Supervisors support his recommendation. There were no objections. Ms. Humphris clarified Ms. Thomas' suggestion by saying that $25,000 would be included in the County's FY 1996-97 budget for the GIS Implementation Program. However, $10,692 for the TJPDC Mapping Center would be deleted. CTS BUS Service to Wal-Mart - PantoDs (w/ $20~000 ridershiP ~ffset), $50,000 Ms. Humphris announced that the staff has some new information to give to the Board of Supevisors on the CTS bus service to Wal-Mart and Pantops. Ms. White remarked that the Director of the Charlottesville Transit Service, Helen Poore, has informed staff that there has been a proposal made to City Council on CTS and JAUNT services which would extend Route Seven both on the northern end of the route to go to Wal-Mart and on the eastern end to go to Pantops. Two additional buses would have to be added which would make a total of four buses, and it would increase the frequency along the Route Seven trunk line from 30 minutes to 20 minutes. She stated that the total cost of this option is approximately $122,000. She added that City officials are proposing that their cost will be $54,000 and the County's will be $48,000, with projected ridership fees being collected of approximately $24,000. She noted that City Council has not approved this proposal, but she believes a work session will be held on Thursday night. There has been some concern about how the shopping centers could actually contribute to this effort, and Ms. Poore has said they could leverage some support by putting in some parking areas at their shopping center if the bus service goes to Wal-Mart and Pantops. Mr. Martin recalled that two years ago this Board was discussing expanding to Pantops which was just a matter of crossing the bridge. He said that would have cost $100,000, which he assumes was without City help. Ms. Humphris clarified that the $100,000 included the capital costs plus the operation deficit. Mr. Martin pointed out that this new proposal calls for two additional buses. Ms. Humphris responded that for some reason now, the cost of the buses is not being included, probably because of federal funds. Mr. Tucker said that the City had federal funds two years ago for the capital costs, but now City officials hope money is available from a grant for the buses. Mr. Martin stated that he could support approving this proposal on condition that the City approves the 44 percent. However, he would like to see more of a leverage against the shopping centers than just a parking spot. He said Pantops and Wal-Mart really want this service, and they are going to be huge beneficiaries. He added that it seems to him something more should be expected from these shopping centers than just parking space. Ms. Humphris brought out the fact that a number of years ago discussions were held about trying to convince the merchants to provide bus tickets for customers and have free ride days, etc., to help pay the costs and increase the ridership. There were a lot of ideas suggested, but the merchants never picked up on them. She next mentioned the length of time it is taking to get the Park and Ride situation settled at Rio Hills Shopping Center. She said it was promised, but she does not know why it hasn't been done. She stated that the County officials want very badly to provide bus service to Pantops and Wal-Mart for a lot of reasons. She said it will make it easier for people to get to shopping destinations and work, and it is one of the major traffic reduction strategies. She went on to say County officials are waiting to see if the City wants to provide this service or not and whether the shopping centers will cooperate in a meaningful way. She added that ridership is March 18, 1996 (Adjourned from March 13, 1996) 0002~4 (Page 22) . uncertain, so there will have to be a caveat that this situation will have to have a trial period of time. She said then if it is found that this route has to be shut down, this will be another situation where the route was promised, but then it was cut off. She stated that the Supervisors have to be aware of all the likelihoods of the scenarios, if this Board includes this request in its budget. The Board of Supervisors needs to protect itself as much as possible against all of these unknowns. She wondered if there was some way someone could work with the merchants in these two shopping areas. Mr. Martin suggested that this amount of money be earmarked in the reserve, with the condition of City Council approval and further negotiation with Pantops and Wal-Mart in terms of their willingness to somehow participate. ' Ms. Thomas said perhaps only $40,000 could be included to show this Board is serious about supporting the proposal, but that it is also serious about getting support from the two shopping centers. Mr. Marshall stated that he cannot support the proposal unless the shopping centers and the City Council are involved. Ms. Thomas remarked that a traffic light in that vicinity is also desperately needed. Mr. Marshall suggested that $50,000 be put in the reserve. The issue could be revisited when the City officials have made a decision. Ms. Thomas commented that perhaps the reason representatives from shopping centers have not been involved in the past is because they did not believe the Supervisors were serious about the matter. She said another reason for approving this service is because County officials really have to be serious about their traffic reduction strategies. She stated that she wants to be able to look all applicants for employment centers in the eye and ask about their plans for traffic reduction, while knowing that this Board is doing serious things about the situation. She said if County officials don't do their part, it is harder to force others. She noted that she would also like a commitment from the other Board members that they will want to enforce traffic reduction strategies. Ms. Humphris mentioned that one of the arguments the shopping center representatives will probably make is that nothing was required of Fashion Square, and it became a destination the County is subsidizing. Mr. Martin reiterated that previously the amount for Pantops to be included in the CTS service was $100,000. This proposal.is different, and he likes the idea of putting $40,000 in a contingency fund while waiting for City Council to make a decision. He mentioned, also, that this proposal includes two shopping centers. Ms. White said it was originally thought that the proposal was for $50,000, and this is the amount included in the budget document. However, due to subsequent discussions with the City officials, it was determined that the figure is really $48,000. At this time, Ms. Thomas offered a motion, seconded by Mr. Martin, to put $40,000 in a fund to leverage the City and private sector in order to increase CTS service with two additonal buses tO Pantops and Wal-Mart Shopping Centers. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Ms. Humphris. NAYS: Mr. Marshall and Mr. Bowerman. Ms. Humphris asked if Mr. Bowerman would inform the other Board members of his thinking on this matter. Mr. Bowerman responded that there were some unresoived issues. Mr. Marshall said he has the same concern. He stated that he wants some help from the businesses and from the City before he commits taxpayers' money to this project. He said people will be riding the buses and spending money in these shopping centers. March 18, 1996 (Adjourned 'from March 13, 1996) (Page 23) . 0002S5 Mr. Bowerman pointed out that he was considering the fact that the County would be getting one percent of the sales tax, which would be a partial offset. However, he would like to see the whole picture when the final proposal is done. Mr. Tucker reminded Mr. Bowerman that the money will be put in a contingency fund, so he will be able to see the proposal before a decision is made. Ms. Thomas commented that she thinks all Board members are in agreement on this matter. Ms. Humphris said she does not think any of the Supervisors want to approve this proposal no matter what happens. She stated that she thinks all of them are firmly fixed on all of the supporting items which were mentioned. Mr. Marshall commented that this community has an abundance of retail establishments, and he mentioned the number that open each year, as well as the ones that close. He said when a proposal such as this is approved, customers are being moved from one place to another, which means the sales tax is just being redistributed. Mr. Bowerman said sales tax revenues would be moved from the City to the County. Mr. Marshall pointed out that there are a lot of people in the urban areas who will be riding the buses, as well as the City residents. Ms. Humphris noted that the Supervisors also need to be concerned about people being able to get to jobs, etc. Mr. Bowerman remarked that he thinks the vote reflects the concerns of the Supervisors. The vote carried, but it was not unanimous, and there are some issues needing attention. Mr. Tucker suggested that the Board get an idea of the new budget figures, since their revisions, before proceeding with the other requests. Ms. White reported that there is $244,432 in the remaining reserve fund. Mr. Marshall was uncertain as to how the staff arrived at the amount in the remaining reserve fund, so Ms. White explained the items that were funded, and the ones that were deleted in order to reach this figure. At 2:59 p.m., Mr. Tucker suggested that the Board take a quick break, so the staff could develop a print-out with the new figures. At 3:15 p.m., the Board reconvened. Ms. Humphris announced that the new figures showed a total reserve fund of $273,984. Mr. Tucker explained that as far as the police records clerk was concerned, the staff showed a zero for this position, since the Supervisors indicated they may want to revisit the item. He said if the position is funded, this amount of money will have to be deducted from the $273,984. Mr. Bowerman inquired if the same thing was done for Bright Stars, JABA and Region Ten. Mr. Tucker answered affirmatively. Ms. Humphris said she thinks it would be appropriate to discuss the items showing zeros. She stated that the first one on the list is the police records clerk. However, she couldn't remember the details of the need that was explained about this position, although she has no doubt it is needed. She wondered, though, if there is anything else the Board members should know about it. Mr. Huff replied that the reasons behind the request for this position is the continued increased workload of the people in the support services division. These employees handle everything coming into the building on a 24 hour a day basis, as well as call-ins and picking up insurance reports, etc. They also handle radio traffic, that is administrative in nature, from the officers in the field, rather than directing it to the EOC. Ms. Humphris read from the budget information that optimum staffing for the records section is 13, and there are currently eight people assigned to this section. She noted that it is staffed on a 24 hour a day basis, and there is no opportunity for job enrichment or rotation, which has led to March 18, 1996 (Adjourned from March 13, 1996) (Page 24) burnout and stress levels for employees. She read that the alternative methods for dealing with this situation is to use overtime and temporary workers. This is something she would really like to see funded, although she does not know if there is any more support on this Board for it. Ms. Thomas stated that she feels the same way, and she wondered if it could be discussed later. She noted that this item is somewhat smaller in cost than the other three items. JABA Capital Request: $72,000; Region Ten Capital Request: $150,000, Mr. Martin suggested that since there were people present from JkBA and Region Ten, and the other things have been discussed to some extent, perhaps the Board members should start with Region Ten and JABA. Ms. Thomas concurred. Mr. Marshall pointed out that there is Only approximately $273,000 available in the reserve fund, and these two projects, alone, represent $51,000 more than the total amount. Ms. Thomas referred to a memo the Supervisors had received on the Region Ten capital request which indicated the funding could be spread over a two year period. She noted that, in this case, the amount would be $75,000. Ms. Humphris inquired if Board members wanted to discuss JABA and Region Ten at the same time or individually. There was no response, so Ms. Humphris suggested that JAB~s request for the senior facility contribution in the amount of $72,000 be discussed first. She mentioned that there was a lot of background information available prior to today, and she asked if there was anything more in the current packet of information about'this item. Ms. White answered negatively. Mr. Martin stated that JABA recently requested a waiver of the property taxes. He asked about the outcome of this request. Ms. Humphris replied that JABA received this waiver. Ms. Humphris recalled that at the April meeting this Board agreed that any contribution from the County would be based on the County's percentage of senior residents, as well as being contingent on JABA's securing comparable contributions from the other localities. The County's share of this request would then be $72,000 based on the percentage share. However, to date it is staff's understanding that none of the localities, including the City of Charlottesville, have committed funds to this project. Mr. Martin asked if the County's share should have been $72,000, if others had contributed. Ms. Humphris responded affirmatively. Next, Mr. Martin suggested that the Board members may not be inclined to consider this item based on a share system, but they may be willing to handle it in the same way as the Free Clinic. The Board could fund an amount to show support, but it would not necessarily have to be based on a percentage. Ms. Humphris noted that the issue relates to the County's policy for funding capital requests for agencies. She wondered if a policy would be established at this time, if the Board members moved forward with the item, and she pointed out that no criteria has been established to give this Board guidance. She asked what will be the basis for this Board's decision making for all of these items. Mr. Martin asked the amount of the total project. Mr. Gordon Walker, representing JABA, responded that the project will total $2,500,000. Mr. Martin stated that he does not think a bad situation will develop because there are not very many agencies, with which the County works, that are going to be able to put together such a capital campaign. Mr. Bowerman remarked that he would very much like for the Board to fund the $72,000. He noted, though, that Albemarle County does not have the only group of people using this facility. He cannot get away from having some type of equitable distribution from other users including the City as well as other counties. He stated that as much as he would like to do it, he can't deviate from Albemarle County's policy. March 18, 1996 (Adjourned from March 13, 1996) (Page 25) Ms. Thomas asked Mr. Bowerman to explain what he means by Albemarle County's policy. Mr. Bowerman responded that there is a Share system in place, and the County's share of the $200,000 is having some basis in equity. The agreement with JABA was considered, and it was felt there was an equitable relationship between the different parties involved with this agreement. He stated that he strongly believes Albemarle County's share would be $72,000, if the others would participate. However, he doesn't want to get in a situation where the County is funding the cost of other citizens. He believes this is the responsibility of other governments, unless the Supervisors want to change this Board's policy completely, which is another discussion. Mr. Martin remarked that another thing to consider is the whole reversion issue and the willingness of the County to take on more of a share than population or usage may require, in some cases. Ms. Thomas called attention to the January 30, 1996 memo from Gordon Walker which is shown on Page 15 of the information the Supervisors received over the weekend. She said Mr. Walker, in this memo, points out that jurisdictions are not in favor of putting money into capital projects outside of their County. She stated that it probably will be quite difficult in getting fair share contributions for capital projects from the outlying counties which would rather put their money into local programs. This particular principle is not involved here, because the project is in this County. Ms. Humphris brought out the fact that lots of City residents will be using this facility, and City officials have not funded this request. Ms. Thomas wondered if it is a sure thing that the City is not going to contribute. Ms. White responded that this issue will be up for discussion again at the City Council's Thursday work session. Mr. Martin asked if there are examples where Albemarle County has funded capital projects in the City on a pro rated formula basis. Ms. Humphris answered that the County has not ever funded an agency's capital project. Mr. Tucker reminded Ms. Humphris of the previous MACAA funding. Mr. Bowerman stated that County officials were willing to look at the JABA project in this case, because they thought an equitable formula was involved. He understands other jurisdiction's concerns, but on the other hand, their citizens are the beneficiaries of the facility. He noted that the project will not help the tax base of Albemarle County, because it is tax exempt. He also pointed out that it is of no more benefit to Albemarle County than the others except for its location. Mr. Martin commented that he is just suggesting different alternatives. He then asked what if the surrounding counties were not in the picture and only consideration was given to whether or not the City officials participate. Ms. Thomas pointed out that this is similar to Region Ten's request because its representatives are just asking for City and County involvement. She noted that this would also be the County's precedent for funding a capital project inside the City, even though it will probably be a more reasonable request. She added, though, that JABA will be requesting more than $72,000 if the County's fair share of this project was considered differently and only the City and County were involved. Mr. Martin said this is true, or J~_BA would have to make up the difference for the other localities. He mentioned that the library is funded on a regional basis, but another county was out of compliance with its share for a couple of years. Ms. Thomas said the county to which Mr. Martin referred has now agreed to comply. She added that when the county was not in compliance, its library hours were being cut, etc. Ms. Humphris noted that this situation related to the other county's operating funds and not capital projects. Mr. Bowerman stated that if a rationale for JABA and Region Ten can be developed, dealing with Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville, he has no problem with trying to support it. He said both Of these organizations provide a high level of service to the citizens in this area. Mr. Marshall remarked that he does not disagree. However, the total reserve fund is currently at approximately $273,000, and if these two requests March 18, 1996 (Adjourned from March 13, 1996) (Page 26) .. are approved, they will be $48,016 over. this amount. He does not see how the Supervisors can consider the requests at this point in time. He agreed that these two projects are good things, but when the money is not there, nothing can be done about it. Ms. Thomas referred to the Region Ten proposal which includes the fact that the funding can be spread over a two year time period. She asked if something of this nature could be worked out for JABA. Mr. Tucker said the JABA request could be spread out over several years. Ms. Thomas stated that perhaps the JABA request could be spread over a five year period, except that the current Supervisors could not commit a subsequent Board of Supervisors. Mr. Bowerman said this could be done as long as there is some continuity involved. Mr. Tucker commented that the funding could be contingent upon Charlottesville and/or the other localities funding their share. He said it may make it easier for the other localities if the funding is spread over several years. Mr. Marshall asked why the money cannot be left in the reserve fund until the other jurisdictions indicate what they are going to do. He said if the County had lots of money, then the County could obligate itself, but this is not the case. Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Walker if matching funding is available based upon a commitment by a government over a two or three year period of time. recalled that JABA is leveraging some of these funds. He Mr. Walker responded that there is going to be a bridge loan which will be spread over at least three to five years. He said pledges are being received regardless of the source, whether they are private or public dollars, and they will be used to pay back the loan. He noted, though, that the pledges arrive at different periods in time. Ms. White emphasized that there are additional funds in the County's capital budget, if necessary. Mr. Martin pointed out that if the $72,000 is spread over a five year term, it would be approximately $15,000 a year, and if $150,000 is spread over a two year period, the total amount to be funded would be approximately $140,000. This would leave $134,000 in the reserve fund, and he noted again that he is simply making suggestions. Ms. Humphris requested that the Board members keep in mind the Bright Stars program, which would require funding of approximately $40,000. She said she thinks this is something that really needs to be done. Mr. Marshall stated that the Board members are asked for additional funding all through the year, and they always have to go back to this reserve. He said it is a small reserve. Ms. Humphris asked Ms. White to restate her comments on the capital budget, since there are capital dollars involved. Ms. White referred to the beginning allocation in November where an additional $500,000 was transferred into the Capital Improvement Program. She said approximately $50,000 has been used to fund the increase in the Ivy Road project, and the remainder of the $450,000 has been put into the school fund to cover repair and maintenance projects. She stated that this decision was made as far as how to use the additional $450,000, but the funding is there for capital needs. Mr. Tucker remarked that the funding is available, but the dilemma is whether or not it makes sense to borrow the money for maintenance and repair. This is what will happen, if the extra $450,000 is not used for the schools' repair and maintenance projects. Mr. Marshall concurred. That is why the money should be left in the reserve fund. Ms. Thomas inquired as to how Mr. Martin arrived at his figures. She said $12,000 for the JABA project and $75,000 for Region Ten, amounts to $87,000. Mr. Martin apologized for his error. He went on to say $87,000 March 18, 1996 (Adjourned from March 13, 1996) 00028.9 (Page 27) plus $40,000 would leave approximately $190,000 in the reserve fund. He also noted that funding for the Bright Star program still had to be considered. Mr. Bowerman asked if this suggestion is contingent upon Charlottesville's contribution or if it is a separate statement by Albemarle County. Mr. Marshall said he will support the suggestion if the money is held in the reserve fund contingent upon Charlottesville's contribution, but that is the only way he will support it. Mr. Martin wondered what will happen if Charlottesville doesn't contribute. Mr. Marshall answered that the money will then stay in the Board's reserve fund. Ms. Thomas said if charlottesville doesn't contribute to JABA's funding,.this Board cOuld discuss it again. Mr. Martin agreed. Ms. Humphris asked if someone would like to make a motion, in order to sort out all of these suggestions. At this time Mr. Martin offered a motion to support the $72,000 request from JABA to be spread over a five year period of time, as well as the $150,000 for Region Ten to be spread over a two year period of time, and that the money be held in reserve pending the City of Charlottesville contributing its share. Mr. Tucker inquired of Mr. Jim Peterson, representing Region Ten in the audience, if Region Ten could spread its needs over a longer period than two years. Mr. Peterson answered that it would be very difficult. He pointed out that both JABA and Region Ten are actually agencies of local government. The reason Region Ten formed a nonprofit organization in order to get this property is because the private sector was saying it would not contribute to local government's responsibility, and representatives of these agencies should go to local government for support. He stated that Region Ten has been extraordinarily successful, and $700,000 of private money has been pledged for this project. This agency is different from the Red Cross or any private nonprofit organization, because it is an agency formed by the Board of Supervisors 28 years ago. He mentioned that there are 40 community services boards, and 12 of these are single jurisdictions, where all of their capital needs are covered by the localities. He stated that the remainder, such as his agency, are in the more rural areas, and they have had a wide variety of support. He stated that his is the only community service board left that has absolutely no local support in terms of capital needs, mainly because an appropriate place could not be found for this centralized facility. He is delighted the place has been found, and he appreciates this Board's support to make the whole thing happen. Mr. Tucker responded that it appears Mr. Peterson does not think the funding could be spread over more than two years. He went on to say he had never asked Mr. Peterson this question before, and he thought there might be a chance the funding could be spread out over more than two years, which would help the County. Mr. Marshall asked if this means Region Ten can use $75,000 per year. Mr. Tucker answered affirmatively. Mr. Marshall then asked if the $12,000 over five years was unacceptable to JABA. Mr. Tucker replied that JABA's request can be spread over five years. Mr. Bowerman remarked that the only reason the Supervisors are undertaking this capital funding is because they recognize that these organizations have been formed by local government. Mr. Marshall stated that, on the other hand, money has to be available for this funding. He then seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, and Ms. Humphris. None. Mr. Marshall inquired about the total funding this year for the two programs. Ms. White responded that the total is $89,400. Ms. Humphris clarified that the funding is for $75,000 for Region Ten and $14,400 for JABA. March 18, 1996 (Adjourned from March 13, 1996) (Page 28) 000290 At-Risk Four-Year Old Funding, $39,405 Mr. Martin offered a motion, seconded by Ms. Thomas, to provide the local match for the Bright Stars program of $39,405. Mr. Marshall inquired about this program. Ms. Humphris explained that this is a program for at-risk four year olds, and it is a duplicate of the one being held at Stone-Robinson. Mr. Marshall asked for the new total in the reserve fund after funding the JABA and Region Ten requests. Ms. White answered that the new reserve fund total is $184,584. Mr. Marshall said if the amount for the Bright Stars program is subtracted, the reserve fund will be approximately $145,000. This is getting low, and he asked about the total amount in the reserve fund last year. Mr. Tucker responded that there was a significant amount in the reserve fund last year, but the Board did not have to use it during the year. Ms. White said $60,000 was put into the Board's reserve fund at the end of the budget work sessions. Mr. Marshall asked if all of the $60,000 was used. Mr. Tucker answered that all of it was not used. Mr. Martin said he remembered one year when only $20,000 was left in the Board's reserve fund. Mr. Tucker mentioned that he recalls years when there was no reserve fund, at all. Ms. Humphris pointed out that the Board members need to discuss and vote on the Bright Stars program. The program would be held at Agnor-Hurt and Greer Elementary Schools, and it will take care of all of the County's at-risk four year olds. Ms. White remarked that the funding is only for one program of 17 children. Mr. Tucker said the funding would have to be doubled to do both programs. Ms. White explained that there were 58 children who were not being served by four year old programs., She added that 17 of those are already in a Bright Stars program, and there is funding available for the remainder of the children. The proposal is to take one step with a program being held at either Greer or Agnor-Hurt or someplace where there is enough space. However, the location has not yet been determined. Mr. Bowerman wondered how half of the at-risk children can be picked out for this program while the other half is being left out of it. Ms. Thomas stated that she thinks this is a good question, because she has always thought the County needed to work into such things gradually. She noted that it is always good to have a pilot project, but she pointed out that children are only four years old once. Mr. Bowerman said Stone-Robinson was a trial situation, and it has clearly worked out to the point where County officials feel the program should be extended. He added, though, that it would be difficult to pick 17 out of 34 children to be served by the program, without being concerned that the other children's needs won't be recognized. Ms. Humphris noted that the proposal before this Board is for one program. She asked if it is the Board's pleasure to do more. Mr. Martin stated that he thinks the Board should take one step this year and another step next year, although he understands Mr. Bowerman's concerns. However, he said he could support taking both steps now. Mr. Tucker wondered if the funds will be available that are being drawn down for this program. Ms. White answered, "yes." She said it is a two year commitment, with $120,000 for all of the 58 children, but it is also in the Governor's budget for next year. At this time, Mr. Martin suggested that since a third program has not been specifically considered, the Board could approve this particular one. The Board could take a close look between now and the time when a decision has to be made for both, as far as what it would take for the third program and where it could logistically be located. Ms. Thomas asked the staff to come back to this Board in a timely fashion with information on a third program. Mr. Tucker said he wanted to March 18, 1996 (Adjourned from March 13, 1996) 000~91 (Page 29) make sure the money was going to be available from the state that could be leveraged next year. Ms. Thomas stated that Mr. Bowerman has suggested, and she agrees, that the program should not wait for next year. She said instead, the Board is waiting another month or so for the staff to come back with information on how to handle a third Bright Stars program. Ms. White commented that one of the reasons the third program has not been developed is because it was not certain if the money was going to be available. The best location for the first program is already known, but the need for the other one has not been determined. She stated that whether or not capital costs are involved is another issue, and these issues all have to be considered. Mr. Martin said the school system would definitely have to be involved. Mr. Tucker and Ms. Humphris agreed. Ms. Humphris stated that the Board would vote on one Bright Stars program with the understanding that the staff will bring back updated information about the possibility of having another such program during this coming fiscal year before the final vote is taken on the FY 1996-97 budget. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, and Ms. Humphris. None. Police: Police Records Clerk (1 FTE) - $21,552 Ms. Humphris inquired if any of the other Board members had any thoughts to share about the police records clerk position. She mentioned the fact that she read about the need for this position in the appendixes to the budget. Mr. Martin noted that there will be seven additional people in the Police Department, and although he can support this position, he can also support waiting for things to settle down. He said if Chief Miller thinks he is ready to add this position later down the line, he would be willing to consider it, then or now. Ms. Humphris stated that the situation is that the new personnel will generate a lot more business for the records clerks to handle. Mr. Martin remarked that he definitely sees the need for the positions already approved. He is a strong believer that clerical staff can save time, money and energy rather than paying someone a certain salary to do something someone else could be paid less to do. Mr. Marshall asked if the Board is going to public hearing with the $145,179 reserve. Ms. Humphris commented that if there are no further motions, then that will be the case. No action was taken. Sheriff: Adding Sheriff's Personnel to County Pay Scale Mr. Perkins referred to adding the Sheriff's personnel to the County pay scale. Mr. Marshall said he thought the $20,000 was funded on the list the Supervisors received today. Mr. Tucker stated that the Board members took no action to move it over to a funding area. Mr. Marshall pointed out that this item is shown as funded in the budget information. Ms. White responded that it should have been shown in the budget as an unfunded item. Ms. Humphris read the note relating to the item which stated that based on the proposed compensation plan and the four and one-half percent state salary increase, the cost of placing the Sheriff's Department on the County's pay scale would be $20,000. She noted that $60,000 was previously reported as the amount for this item. The earlier discussion had been philosophical as well as monetary. Mr. Marshall stated that he will support this item for the same reason he supported the Commonwealth Attorney's request which is that competent March 18, 1996 (Adjourned from March 13, 1996) 000~92' (Page 30) people need to be employed, and they need to be kept in their jobs. He added that the County cannot afford to have deputies quitting the Sheriff's Department and applying for regular County jobs. He said deputies will then have to be retrained, and in this type of situation, the County will not get the proper quality in its employees. Ms. Humphris mentioned that if this is done, it might set a precedent to include others in a similar pay scale such as the jail personnel. She reminded the Supervisors that there are over 80 people employed at the jail. Ms. Thomas stated that this would not be a $20,000 figure. Ms. Humphris agreed. Mr. Tucker remarked that the state Compensation Board is going to increase salaries at four and one-half percent this year, and next year consideration is being given to an additional two percent. The staff looked at this situation again and saw that it would not be as costly under the new pay plan because people don't have to be moved onto a step. He stated that they are just moved into an appropriate range, and that is the reason it is less costly. He added that the Sheriff may want to rethink this matter because his employees may be better off if the state continues to try to provide the kind of funding that is happening this year. He explained that the Sheriff's personnel may be in the same situation they were in five or six years ago when they were ahead of the County police officers. He said that only in the last few years has the funding declined at the state level, which is why the Sheriff's office has been more concerned about moving onto the County's pay plan. He said the Sheriff is anticipating that the State would not be funding the deputies as much as the County's pay plan. Mr. Tucker said he does not know what is going to happen in the future, but he does not think Sheriff Hawkins has really considered this situation. Ms. Humphris commented that she still thinks a very significant consideration has to be that the employees at the regional jail would have every right to be considered for the County's pay scale, also. Mr. Marshall wondered how much money would be involved for the jail employees. Mr. Tucker responded that the jail employees have not been considered for such a change. He went on to explain that Sheriff Hawkins has twelve people and there are probably 80 at the jail. Ms. Humphris agreed that there are 80 plus people at the jail. Mr. Perkins reminded Board members that half of the jail people are employees of the City. Mr. Tucker concurred with Mr. Perkins remark. Mr. Tucker went on to say that City officials would have to agree to the proposal as well. Mr. Martin stated that he has no problem with supporting this item, and no precedent is being set, since the Sheriff's deputies are already receiving a stipend. He agreed with Ms. Humphris, though, that the jail security people have a legitimate right to come to this Board for the same consideration. The Board could try to keep the Sheriff's deputies on the County's pay plan, but next year, if the budget won't allow increases, then Board members could make changes. Mr. Tucker remarked that the Sheriff has indicated he would be willing to sign an agreement that the Sheriff's employees would stay on the County's pay plan. However, Mr. Tucker said he has always been concerned that a new Sheriff may become involved, or if the state offers more funding next year, that the employees will want to change. Mr. Bowerman said he does not want the employees to be going back and forth on different pay scales. Mr. Martin stated that he does not want this to happen either, and that was not what he was suggesting. He added that he was thinking about what would happen if this particular funding was done now, and next year the County's half of the Joint Security Complex staff is funded. He suggested that if there comes a time when raises could not be given to the County's own employees, then these additional people would get the same treatment. Mr. Tucker concurred that this is correct. These people would get the same amount of increases as the other County employees. Mr. Martin went on to say if the County was giving a two percent raise, but the Compensation Board was giving more, these employees would only get the two percent. Mr. Tucker stated that once the Sheriff's deputies go on the County's pay plan, the Compensation Board will not be considered anymore. The revenue ~arch 18, 1996 (Adjourned from March 13, 1996) %;%;I~;~ Page 31) would come to the Director of Finance, and it would not even be considered for these salaries. Ms. Thomas commented that there could be a supervision problem with these employees, since they would not be falling in any of the county's categories. Mr. Tucker said he would want the employees to follow the County's personnel policies, as well as the evaluation criteria. Mr. Bowerman mentioned that if the Sheriff doesn't support all of this, it should not happen. Ms. Thomas pointed out that the sheriffs in the state did not SUpport the police officers bill of rights which involves such things as not being fired for political reasons, etc. The sheriff's departments do not have the same types of employment situations. Mr. Bowerman stated that he will only consider the proposal if the Sheriff will support the fact that his employees will have to follow County personnel policies and evaluation procedures, etc. He said if this Board is going to make them County employees, then they will have to be governed by personnel policies and procedures. Mr. Martin mentioned that the Board of Supervisors can always undo its action. Ms. Thomas said this is true as long as it includes the provision that the way the employees are hired and fired is not based on the Sheriff's whims. Mr. Davis said the employees would have to be subject to the County's grievance procedures and other personnel policies. Ms. Humphris noted that jail officials have just recently adopted similar personnel policies as the County's. Mr. Tucker agreed that the jail's policies are very similar to the County's, although they are not identical. Ms. Thomas wondered how much lower the jail's pay plan is than the County's. Mr. Bowerman noted that the County would have to develop a category for these people, because it doesn't currently exist. Mr. Tucker said one of the things that is going to be difficult relates to the hierachy the Sheriff has created in his department. He mentioned that there are only twelve people involved, but there are five management Supervisory personnel for these twelve. He added that there is a captain, a lieutenant and three sargeants. He does not know how this will work when there is a sargeant in the Police Department who has to manage 20 or 25 people, and the sargeant in the Sheriff's Department many. only have one or two people. He stated that to put these people on a sargeant's salary the same as one who is working in the Police Department would be a difficult thing to do. Mr. Bowerman said it should not be done. Mr. Martin stated that the number of volunteers has to be considered. He explained that there are a number of deputies who volunteer on a regular basis who do a fair amount of staffing. He said all of this has to be taken into consideration along with the number of people the sargeants are supervising. Mr. Tucker said the Supervisors will probably hear all of these concerns again if they decide to move in that direction. Ms. Thomas suggested that the Sheriff come to this Board with a proposal that will answer all of these questions rather than the supervisors pro actively trying to get the anwers. Mr. Tucker said the Sheriff believes these positions are identical, and they should be paid comparably. Mr. Tucker stated that the Human Resources Office will have to examine these positions to see if they are, in fact, comparable. Ms. Humphris remarked that it seems to her a lot of background information is needed before this matter can be settled. She said all of the questions are being discussed about the way it would affect the Sheriff's Department in terms of personnel policy, and it sounds as though the money is the least significant thing, at this time. She added that the other issues are much more significant including the jail issue. She commented that the amount of money would have to be known as far as treating people comparably, and what would happen if this move was made, and the people at the jail wanted to be treated the same way. Mr. Tucker referred to the CTS bus service item, and he said the Supervisors could handle this item in the same manner as a separate contingency item. He stated that the staff could then come back to this Board and try to provide some of the answers, taking into account the situation with the regional jail. March 18, 1996 (Adjourned from March 13, 1996) (Page 32) 000294 Mr. Martin indicated he liked Mr. Tucker's suggestion. He said things could be worked out so the Sheriff can see the exact situation as to whether or not it would be beneficial to his employees. He went on to say that the interpretation of a sargeant for the Sheriff's Department from the Human Resources Department may not be acceptable. Mr. Tucker stated that Sheriff Hawkins would be amenable to whatever the Board chooses to do, but whenever there is a new Sheriff, the situation will have to be renegotiated. Mr. Marshall remarked that he had made a campaign promise that he would support these officers going on the same pay Plan as the COUnty police officers. However, he said he did it without being knowledgable of the considerations Mr. Tucker has brought forth. He stated that he is willing to accept this budget as it is, with this item being held back as part of the reserve fund, until negotiations with the Sheriff are complete. Ms. Humphris noted that the major part of these negotiations is whether or not the Sheriff's department employees would be better off going on the County pay plan. Mr. Martin said he does not think the issue is negotiable. He stated that the Board members need to look at the information presented to them, and then the Sheriff would have a choice. Mr. Bowerman cOmmented that it is a matter of whether or not these deputies want to become County employees and come under the County's guidelines and policies. Mr. Marshall said the Sheriff could certainly be held to the County's guidelines. Mr. Martin stated that the County's grievance procedure would be a part of these guidelines. Mr. Marshall remarked that this Board cannot tell the Sheriff he can't hire or fire somebody, because he is a constitutional officer. Ms. Thomas disagreed, if the Sheriff's employees are covered Under the County's grievance procedure. Mr. Marshall pointed out that because the Sheriff's deputies would become a part of the County's grievance procedures, etc., if this plan develops, the Sheriff will be giving up some authority. Mr. Martin stated that this is where the Sheriff's hiring and firing capabilities are limited. He said when someone is fired, he or she can file a grievance. Mr. Marshall said this Board cannot legally tie the Sheriff's hands, but it can have some control over that office if the plan develops. Next, Mr. Marshall commented that the Board will be going to public hearing on the FY 1996-97 County budget with a $145,179 reserve. Ms. Humphris inquired as to the type of motion needed for the Board to go to public hearing. Mr. Tucker responded that the Board needs a motion to go to public hearing on the night of April 3, 1996 with the action it has taken today. The tax rate also has to be set today. At this time, Mr. Martin offered a motion, seconded by Mr. Marshall, for the Board of Supervisors to go to public hearing on the FY 1996-97 Albemarle County budget based on the budget amended by the Board of Supervisors today with the tax rates set at 72 cents per hundred on real property and $4.28 per hundred on personal property. Ms. White asked for clarification on the Sheriff's item. She asked if the Board members want to separate $20,000 for the Sheriff's deputies into a separate contingency fund that is outside of the reserve. Board members responded negatively. Mr. Marshall said the $20,000 should be held in the reserve fund. Mr. Tucker indicated that the item will not be identified. Mr. Marshall pointed out, though, that there is a consensus of this Board that the Supervisors will try to work out these problems with the Sheriff. Ms. Thomas stated that she agrees with John Carter that this Board should allow the County residents to discuss whether they would rather have the same dollars raised through income tax rather than property tax. She commented that she would be interested in having a hearing and letting people talk about this. She noted that it is obviously not within this Board's power to do so, but it is within its power to encourage or discourage the legislators. She said it has been pointed out to her that there is a legislative committee working this year in the interim between General Assembly sessions that will be taking up this issue. She stated that this March 18, 1996 (Adjourned from March 13, 1996) (Page 33) Board can have a major say in their deliberations, or it could have nothing to say. Mr. Marshall noted that there are a lot of absentee residents in ~rle County, and he asked how these people will be taxed. He said now they are taxed by real estate taxes. Mr. Bowerman said there would still be real estate taxes. Mr. Marshall emphasized that he will not sUpport any additional tax. Mr. Martin suggested that the vote be taken on the motion that is on the floor. Ms. Humphris asked that the roll be called. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, and Ms. Humphris. None. Ms. Thomas continued with the discussion on taxes. She mentioned that one proposal would only affect personal property tax, and the income tax would have to be the very same as would have been gathered by the property tax. She stated that it would be a piggyback to the State income tax. She added that another proposal would replace a portion of the real estate tax. She said most people are thinking of it as being revenue neutral, but that it will change the source of the revenue, recognizing that the real estate tax is an unfair, inflexible tax. She said it is inflexible in the sense of the taxpayer, because it does not take into account if a person has been laid off, or if the person has had a windfall in a particular year, or if business has been good or bad. She added, though, it is a stable tax for local government because it doesn't fluctuate. She stated that she does not think anybody is considering totally replacing the real estate tax With inCome tax, but replacing a portion of the County's revenue stream. She would be interested in hearing what the public has to say about it. She stated that Mr. Mitch Van Yahres had presented the matter to the General Assembly. Mr. Marshall stated that there are a lot of scenarios relating to this issue. He said if there is a public hearing on a subject, there should be a specific thing on which to hold the hearing. He wondered how the residence of a person will be determined, if real estate taxes are eliminated and Albemarle County has to rely solely on personal income tax. He noted that if a person's legal residence is in New York City, and he makes $20,000,000 a year, Albemarle County cannot tax his income. However, he may own millions of dollars of real estate property in Albemarle County on which he won't be taxed. He went on to say he will not support adding another tax, because there are too many taxes now. Ms. Humphris asked Mr. Davis if the committee to which Ms. Thomas referred has been in session for a couple of years. Mr. Davis responded that there was one committee which met and reported this fall. He said now there is a Cogan's Committeee which will study the Van Yahres bill and several other bills that are before the General Assembly. He is unsure when the report is due, but he thinks it will be done during the next session. Ms. Humphris stated that the public needs to be educated before a public hearing is held. She said it would be total chaos if members of the public were speaking on something they knew nothing about and hardly anybody has any knowledge on this subject. She said a very clear explanation is needed of the various scenarios before the subject can be presented to the public for feedback. Mr. Martin remarked that in the future if public input is desired on this particular issue, he would like to include in the debate the public's reaction to a reduction in the real estate taxes in exchange for a meals tax. For instance, whatever revenue the meals tax brings in for one year, an adjustment could be made on the property taxes the next year. Ms. Humphris stated that there are a lot of different scenarios if there was time to prepare the subject for the public. Mr. Marshall reiterated that he would be opposed to any new tax without a reduction in Albemarle County's current taxes. The citizens are already taxed heavily enough. March 18, 1996 (Adjourned from March 13, 1996) 000~'9~ (Page 34) Ms. Humphris commented that she does not think Mr. Marshall stands alone on this subject. Agenda Item No. 3. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. There were none. Agenda Item No. 4. Executive Session: Legal Matters. At 4:15 p.m., Mr. Bowerman offered a motion, seconded by Ms. Thomas, that the Board go into executive session pursuant to Section 2.1-344(A) of the Code of Virginia under subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding specific legal matters relating to reversion and regarding specific legal matters relating to contracts for the purchase of land and sale of property. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, and Ms. Humphris. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 5. Certify Executive Session. At 4:45 p.m., the Board reconvened into open session. Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Martin, that the Board certify by a recorded vote that to the best of each Board member's knowledge only public business matters lawfully exempted froTM the open meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identified in the motion authorizing the executive session were heard, discussed or considered in the executive session. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomasi Mr. Bowerman, and Ms. Humphris. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 6. Adjourn. The meeting was immediately adjourned. Aproved by Board Initials