1995-03-13 adj000 143
March 13, 1995 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 1)
An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on March 13, 1995, at 1:00 P.M., Room 241, County Office
Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. This meeting was ad-
journed from March 6, 1995.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman (arrived at 1:14 p.m.), Ms. Charlotte Y.
Humphris, Mr. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr. (arrived at 1:08 p.m.), Mr. Charles S.
Martin (arrived at 1:05 p.m.), Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Ms. Sally H. Thomas.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Deputy
County Executive, Richard E. Huff, II, and Executive Assistant, Roxanne W.
White.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 1:05 p.m., by the
Chairman, Mr. Perkins.
Agenda Item No. 2. WORK SESSION 1995-96 COUNTY BUDGET:
Budget Overview of Major Issues - Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Execu-
tive.
Mr. Tucker said he would not make a formal presentation of the budget
today because he did that previously, and he also had discussed the proposed
budget in detail at the preliminary public hearing. He then provided an
update on the Board's Reserve Fund. The beginning Reserve Fund was $200,419.
Added to that amount was $36,515 from restoration of the State 599 Funds,
$309,875 from restoration of Commissioner of Revenue/Treasurer (Director of
Finance in Albemarle County) Funds, less $25,000 which was added to the
Capital Projects Reserve Fund. This provides a net beginning Reserve Fund of
$521,809.
At the last meeting between the Board of Supervisors and the School
Board, staff was instructed to build the budget based on a two percent merit
pool and a two percent scale adjustment for employees. Several members asked
for an analysis to show what the impact of that might be on various salaried
positions. Staff studied a $15,000 salaried position and a $30,000 salaried
position. When the increased health insurance premium was factored into the
$15,000 salary, the two percent actually netted a decrease. When the in-
creased health insurance premium was factored into the $30,000 salary, the two
percent netted about a 1.2 percent increase.
Mr. Tucker said he would like to mention the merit pool itself. With a
two percent merit pool, 93 percent of employees would not receive a vested
merit, or only 21 employees in local government would receive a one-step
vesting. He said the School Board placed on their ~Unfunded Priority List" an
increase in the merit pool from two percent to two and one-half percent. If
the Board supports adding one-half of one percent to the merit pool, it would
require $108,234 for both local government and the schools jointly to fund
that increase.
Mr. Tucker then handed out an analysis of salaries over the past six
years in an attempt to show the impact of salary increases over a longer
period of time. He said this information is given out today for the Board to
consider when discussing whether or not to increase the merit pool.
Mr. Tucker said the Sheriff had requested that the Board consider again
the constitutional officer's salaries, and whether or not to put these persons
on the County's pay scale or to give a stipend. The Board also received a
letter from the Electoral Board about the salary of the Registrar. He said
that staff did an analysis of the request from the Sheriff and looked at
moving all of the Sheriff's Department positions onto the County's pay scale.
It would cost from $45,000 to $60,000 to make such a change. The other
alternative is to consider stipends. Other localities are doing this now.
(Note: Mr. Bowerman arrived at the meeting at 1:14 p.m.) If the Board chose
the stipend approach and used two percent for that stipend, staff would
suggest that each year there was an increase for local government employees,
the stipend be increased by that amount. A stipend would not be as costly,
and a stipend could be provided to all employees in the offices of the
constitutional officers for less than $25,000. He said staff needs to know
how the Board feels about this issue in order to provide some final numbers
March 13, 1995 (Adjourned Meeting)~
(Page 2)
for the budget at the final work session.
000144
He said that unless the Board
members had questions, he was ready to begin work on the departmental budgets.
Ms. Thomas said employees have mentioned before that because of the
increase in health insurance premiums, they end up with a negative salary
adjustment. She asked if the staff could analyze that. Mr. Tucker said staff
is recommending that the County pay 90 percent of the employee's share of the
health insurance premium next year. It is because insurance in general
increases that the individual's salary is impacted. Staff can determine how
much it would cost if the County were to pay 100 percent of the employee's
share. Ms. Thomas said that is not what she was thinking about. She was
curious to know how a person's salary in 1990 compares to what that person is
receiving today.
Ms. Humphris said she thinks that in the future when the Board starts to
talk about paying an even higher percentage of health insurance for the
employee, the Board will need data on how that impacts the usage of health
insurance. She thinks that if'the County paid 100 percent of the premium, the
person would abuse use of the insurance. Mr. Tucker said that is the reason
the amount the County pays was capped in 1988-89. The County is self-insured,
and most of the employees recognize that. It has not affected the County's
insurance rates significantly.
Mr. Bowerman said he has seen ads in the Wall Street Journal about a
company which gives back to the individual employees at the end of the year
any health insurance premiums which were not spent during that particular
year. Mr. Tucker said the County does that now. In the past, the County has
used those funds to reduce the rate. This year those funds will be used to
fund the health screening. Any excess funds go back to the employee in some
form. A reserve is kept in the event that in the following year there is a
bad experience with health claims. That is a benefit of being self-insured.
Mr. Perkins said if there were no further questions for Mr. Tucker, the
Board would proceed to the next agenda item.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENTS.
Board of Supervisors: Requested, $296,321; recommended, $288,871.
Ella W. Carey, Clerk, was present.
The six members of the Board of Supervisors are elected from six
magisterial districts. The Board's office staff consists of the Clerk and two
deputy clerks. The FY 1995-96 budget request of $296,321 reflects a 1.6
percent increase in compensation, a 2.4 percent increase in benefits and a 0.9
percent increase in operational expenses. The requested baseline budget
increases by $4060 (1.4%) over the current year. Included in operational
accounts is an increase in printing and binding for updates of the Code of
Albemarle of $1600 (114%), and an increase in surety bonds for Board members
and the Clerk of $1200 (1200%). These bonds now cover a four-year period
instead of one year.
The County Executive recommends that the Staff Services Department try
to fund a new program request of $7400 for a chemical dry system (needed to
protect Board records from fire and water damage from the County's sprinkler
system) out of its current year's budget. The baseline budget of $288,871 is
recommended for approval, with no expanded requests being recommended for
funding.
There were no questions from Board members.
County Executive: Requested, $409,403; recommended, $409,403. Robert
W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive, was present.
The County Executive is the chief executive officer of County government
and is appointed by and accountable to the Board of Supervisors. His staff
consists of a deputy county executive, an executive assistant, a management
analyst, an administrative secretary and a part-time office assistant.
The total budget for the County Executive's Office increases by $9701
(2.4%), reflecting a 20.7 percent decrease in operating expenses and a $200
increase in capital costs. The decrease in several operating accounts is due
March 13, 1995 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 3)
000145
to transferring a portion of expenses to the Community Resources Office which
was relocated from the Police Department to the County Executive's Office
during FY 1994-95. The Community Resources Office is a division of the County
Executive's Office but has its own cost center.
Baseline funding is recommended for the County Executive's Office.
There are no expanded requests.
There were no questions from Board members.
Community Resources Office: Requested, $43,737; recommended, $43,737.
The Community Resources Office is responsible for the County's Public
Information and Education Program, by promoting citizen input in the process
of local government, making County government more accessible and responsive
to the concerns of citizens, and educating residents about the issues and
policies that will determine the locality's future direction. The Community
Resources Office is staffed by a community resources coordinator.
The budget request of $43,737 consists of $35,122 in compensation and
benefits, $5520 in operational expenses and $3095 in expanded program re-
quests. The County Executive recommends funding the $40,642 baseline budget
of the Community Resources Office, plus $3095 in additional funds to expand
activities (the newsletter "FYI" [For Your Information] highlighting General
Government activities which is distributed to the public; the number of
regular articles and columns in local newspapers; special brochures; fact
sheets; a monthly calendar of dates and events of interest; news releases and
public service announcements).
There were no questions from Board members.
Human Resources: Requested, $215,249; recommended, $215,249. Juliet C.
Jennings, Director, was present.
The Albemarle County Department of Human Resources serves both general
government and school division employees. With approximately 1700 full-time
personnel, the function of the department is to manage all phases of staffing.
Its total operating budget is carried in the School Fund. A transfer from the
General Fund to the School Fund represents general government's share of the
operation, which is based on the number of general government employees
(currently 21%). In addition to this contribution to the School Fund, line
items in the personnel budget include stipends and fringe benefits for general
government employees that are not carried in individual department budgets,
e.g., early retirement, etc.
General Government's contribution to the Personnel/Human Resources
budget increases by $17,324 (8.8%), which reflects a 34.5 percent increase in
general government benefits (unemployment, early retirement, part-time
annuities) and a 3.5 percent increase in General Government's transfer to the
School Division for the operating expenses of the Department. The increased
transfer includes some expenses of the Media Center because the training
function which was under Human Resources has now been moved to the Media
Center. One reason for the increase in the transfer is due partly to higher
salaries since reorganization of the Department. No new positions were added,
but the position of recruitment coordinator which was vacant all of last year,
has been filled as of July 1 at the deputy director level. Also, the benefits
area has been moved back under Human Resources. Prior to July 1, it had been
shared with the Finance Department on the School side, etc. Bringing that
back to Human Resources, has brought along with it a mid-level management
position.
Ms. Jennings said there are two areas in the Department which are not
shared in the 21 percent cost-sharing venture. There is a Human Resources
Specialist who works solely with the School side because of issuing contracts
for certified personnel. That salary and benefits are under the School
Division. In addition, the complete funding of Affirmative Action and the
recruitment activity come from School funding. In addition to the transfer,
the largest increases in expenditures are in "other personnel items" which are
unique to the local government funding. The increase in General Government
benefits reflects a 78.6 percent increase in unemployment insurance and a 4.3
00014G
March i3, 1995 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 4)
percent increase in annuity payments for part-time employees due to an
increase in the number of employees receiving these payments.
The County Executive has recommended baseline funding for the Department
of Personnel/Human Resources. There are no expanded requests.
There were no questions from Board members.
County Attorney: Requested, $334,941; recommended, $243,388.
Davis, County Attorney, was present.
Larry W.
The County Attorney's office (Legal Services) acts as the legal advisor
to County government and all its departments insuring that all official
actions of the County, its departments, officials, and employees, comply with
State and Federal law. The office is staffed by an in-house county attorney,
a deputy county attorney and a legal services assistant. The total budget for
this office increases by $27,486 (12.7%), which reflects a 3.2 percent
increase in compensation, a 4.4 percent decrease in benefits and a 2.8 percent
increase in operations.
The County Executive did not recommend funding of an assistant county
attorney. This position was requested to meet increased demand for legal
services such as reviewing and updating County policies, manuals and ordi-
nances, and implementing a preventative liability program. Included in the
cost was $2385 in additional operating expenses, $2780 for furniture and
equipment and $2780 for computer equipment.
Funding for the County Attorney in the amount of $243,388 was recom-
mended. This includes additional funds for two expanded program requests: A
full-time paralegal was requested, but the County Executive recommended
funding only a part-time position at $11,835. He does recommend funding
$11,450 (including $1050 in capital equipment) for two law clerks/interns
working a total of 20 hours per week who would provide legal research and
support for the attorneys, assist with recodification and continuing updates
of the Code of Albemarle, and increase attorney availability to review and
update revisions to a County policy manual.
Mr. Davis said he has been County Attorney for one year, and the role of
the office is changing because of the in-house nature of the office. The
number of staff contacts and requests for information, and requests from
boards and commissions has increased dramatically over the past year. His
staff has been trying to cover this change in service as much as possible.
The Board Clerk's budget carried an amount for recodification of the Code of
Albemarle, but the major part of that work has to be done by the County
Attorney's Office. They also have a back-log of items that need to be
addressed. The Police Manuals, the Personnel Policies and Procedures, the
School Policies and Procedures, the Purchasing Manual, the Subdivision and
Zoning Ordinances, have not been scrutinized thoroughly for a number of years.
His office staff has a lack of time and resources to accomplish these tasks.
Mr. Davis said he had asked for a full-time paralegal and a full-time
Assistant County Attorney. In the future, as the office expands, there will
be a need for additional support. He has attempted to keep all litigation in-
house and he does not have the support staff to do that easily.
Ms. Thomas said she favors going with the part-time paralegal and the
two interns as recommended. She asked if that is something Mr. Davis is
willing to try for one year. Mr. Davis said that will help his office, but
there are a lot of things these positions cannot do, such as: cover meetings,
provide legal advice, be responsible for any manuals that need to be updated,
or for the recodification.
Ms. Humphris said she thinks the office should have the full-time
paralegal. Mr. Marshall asked how much this office was costing under the
previous attorney. He said it looks like the Board is saving money by having
an in-house attorney, but to him it is what it used to cost when a lot of the
work was being "farmed out." Ms. Humphris said it appears that there is now a
larger work load being handled. She thinks the Board needs to take a bigger
step this year and plan to take an even bigger step next year.
Ms. Thomas asked if the Board were to take a bigger step, is a full-time
paralegal what Mr. Davis would prefer having. Mr. Davis said his first
March 13, 1995 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 5)
preference is to have an additional attorney who could take on responsibili-
ties for the Social Services Department which would decrease that budget by
$20,000+. Taking on that additional responsibility would decrease his
advantage in having the additional attorney. However, it would be to his
advantage to have the attorney and it would not cost his office $20,000 a year
to represent Social Services. In lieu of that, he would prefer the full-time
paralegal position.
Mr. Marshall said what he really wants to know is how much money the
Board is spending for outside help now. Mr. Davis said Social Services is the
only area. Mr. Tucker said that is a small retainer for Jim Bowling to
continue providing Social Services review. In the 1993-94 budget, there was
approximately $90,000 included for transitioning from the former county
attorney to the in-house county attorney position and office.
Mr. Marshall asked how much more the County is getting for its money
now. Mr. Tucker said when the attorney moved into the County Office Building
they became much more accessible. That is where the workload has changed.
Now, the County Attorney's office is on the E-Mail system so the school
principals can get to his office more readily. That was not available with
the former attorney who was not located in the building. Staff has been
sensitive to the Board's feelings about having an in-house attorney. When the
change was being discussed, it was said it would cost more money to have an
in-house attorney rather than having a part-time position. His recommendation
was made from a priority perspective, but if the Board wants to upgrade the
paralegal to full-time, that can be funded.
Ms. Humphris said she thinks it is obvious there is a growing workload
in this office. The important thing is that the job get done. She thinks it
is important for the Board to recognize this is a huge job this office carries
out, and it probably grows daily (based on what is happening in the County and
in the world in general). She does not think it will pay to "stick our heads
in the sand" and not add the personnel now. If there is a need to do this
now, she feels it would be better to do it now. Mr. Tucker said if the Board
is interested in doing it now, he would rather for the Board to do more this
year than next year because that is an off-assessment year and there will not
be the revenues available.
In that case, Ms. Humphris said she would ask that the Board discuss the
issue of adding an Assistant County Attorney position to the office. She said
it is obvious to her that the office needs that position. It is the Board's
obligation to recognize the needs and see if it the position can be funded.
Mr. Martin said if $20,000 were transferred from the Social Services
budget, then only an additional $20,000 is needed to fund this position.
Mr. Bowerman said he has noticed in the past year that there is a more
proactive stance on the part of the Board's legal advisors. He said this
office has tried to make sure the County does business correctly. The fact
that the Board has information and legal opinions which often anticipate
requirements is helpful to him. If this office is still understaffed to do
all the work that needs to be done, he can support what Ms. Thomas and Ms.
Humphris have suggested. He thinks the payback to the County and the taxpay-
ers has the potential of exceeding the cost.
Ms. Thomas asked that the Board discuss exactly what is being suggested.
If the Board approves an Assistant County Attorney, this will add about a
$20,000 expense. If the Board just approves the attorney and not a part-time
paralegal or any clerks, does this put the office in a bad situation. Mr.
Davis said if an attorney is added, the office needs at a minimum a part-time
paralegal/clerical position to provide staff coverage during lunch hours,
vacations, etc.
Mr. Tucker suggested adding the cost of an attorney to the list of
unfunded priorities to be discussed at the last work session. He said the
part-time paralegal is already in the funding for this office. He asked if
the Board members wanted to drop funding for the interns. Ms. Thomas said she
thinks the Board wants to do what is the most useful. Mr. Tucker said he
would add it to the list and arrive at the correct figure later.
Mr. Bowerman said he does not believe this is a surprise to the Board.
When it was decided to have an in-house attorney and staff, and upgrade the
level of services provided to not only the Board, but to County citizens, this
March 13, 1995 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 6)
000:t.48
was expected. Mr. Marshall said he looked at the move as saving money in
different areas, lawsuits, etc.
There were no further questions from Board members.
Department of Finance: Requested $2,134,645; recommended, $2,102,411.
Melvin A. Breeden, Director of Finance, was not able to be present because of
a death in his family. Richard Huff presented this request.
The Department of Finance is responsible for the assessment and collec-
tion, management and disbursement of public funds. It is also responsible for
capital financing and debt management, financial accounting and reporting,
payroll, risk management and insurance, real estate assessments and tax
collection. The responsibilities of the department are broken down into five
divisions: Administration; Accounting and Payroll; Assessment and Collec-
tions; Real Estate; and, Purchasing.
The total baseline budget of the Department of Finance increases by
$149,412 (7.7%) over FY 1994-95, which reflects a 2.5 percent increase in
salaries, a 1.9 percent increase in benefits, a 1.8 percent decrease in
operations, and a 27.1 percent increase in capital equipment costs. The
increase in compensation costs reflects, in part, several reclassifications of
personnel which took place in FY 1994-95, and the reorganization that resulted
in elimination of the Purchasing Agent's position. The realignment between
divisions to work out that is also reflected in these costs. Two major
decreases in operations of the department are a $3000 (60%) decrease in legal
services and a $4500 (25.4%) decrease in copy supplies, both of which were
over budgeted in the current year.
The County Executive recommends funding of $2,102,411, which includes
additional funds for the following expanded program requests reflecting the
impact of the split billing of real property taxes in FY 1995-96: one real
estate clerk II ($23,230), two tax clerk II ($69,018), and the purchase of a
lock box at a local bank ($20,000) which is a service where the bank opens the
mail, makes the deposit from that mail and sends a listing of what was in that
mail. It gets the money in the bank faster so the money begins to earn
interest faster. It is also intended to hold down the additional workload
anticipated by doubling everything as a result of collecting real property
taxes twice a year.
State revenues for the Department decline considerably in FY 1995-96, so
the local share increase reflects the impact of a projected loss in State
Compensation Board revenues. This reduction reflects 82 percent of total
revenues previously received from the State to support this office.
Ms. Thomas said it appears that almost $60,000 has been saved in this
budget. She said it is in salaries so she assumed it had to do with the
shifting of personnel. Mr. Huff said not filling the purchasing agent's
position in the current year accounted for a savings. The Department is not
up to full strength yet to handle that change.
Mr. Marshall said the Board had discussed upgrading the computer system
in the Finance Department, and he does not see funds to cover that upgrade.
He thinks this is a critical area to the County in collections and additional
revenues. Mr. Huff said there are two major projects to bring into the
computer system in Finance this coming year. One of those is the split
billing of the real property tax. Although it sounds easy to do twice in a
year what is normally done one time in a year, the logistics of making that
happen are significant. The second item is the Computerized Mass Appraisal
System for the Real Estate Division. It is possible that a contract on that
item will be signed this week for a two-year project to get it in-house and
build the data bases necessary for that work. This is being done in the event
the County wants to do annual appraisals. Nothing was budgeted for a third
major project this year.
Mr. Marshall said he is always concerned about the reassessment. He
thinks the County will reach a point, as they have in Northern Virginia, where
there will actually be a devaluation. The County will have to be ready for
that, so the Board will need to build some reserve funds into the budget. He
does not think the County can continue to count on the assessments going up.
He believes this new computer program will show that fact. Mr. Tucker said
March 13, 1995 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 7)
000149
some of that was shown in the last reassessment. He believes the assessment
values will flatten out.
Mr. Huff said that throughout the whole budget, with one or two excep-
tions, but especially in the Finance Department, there are no computerization
requests included for departmental computers. There are some items in the
Information Services budget that are county-wide. The computer maintenance
account has been level funded, and computer maintenance is being self-funded.
Any savings at the end of the year will be used as capital to purchase
equipment in the following year. This year the money was given to the Finance
Department, and they are getting about $22,000 of computerization to do some
things with connection to the State computer system. That does not show in
the operations budget.
There were no other questions from Board members.
Information Services: Requested $1,394,639; recommended, $1,289,639.
Fred Kruger, Director, was present.
The Information Services Department provides computer services for all
County employees, including the Department of Education, and all constitu-
tional officers. Online systems are in place for payroll, personnel, finance,
personal property and real estate tax billing, budget preparation, school
media inventory, jury selection, business licenses, dog licenses and the
Virginia Public Assistance program. Additionally, Information Services
provides all computerized services to the School Division, including the
maintenance of the network between school administrative offices, the 23
schools, and school building services and transportation.
A budget increase of $179,201 (16.1%) for Information Services reflects
a 6.9 percent increase in compensation, a 6.9 percent increase in benefits, a
2.9 percent increase in operating expenses, level funding in the replacement
of capital items, and $120,551 for expanded programs. The increase in
compensation and benefit accounts reflect some reclassifications of personnel
plus the addition of a support analyst in FY 1994-95. The $152,060 in capital
outlay and debt service will be used to purchase bridges/routers to attach
remote locations to the County Office Building (COB) ($60,000); microcomputer
hardware for the COB network and in-house training facility ($15,000); new and
upgraded software for the COB LAN ($10,000); mainframe software ($5,000); a
multi platform development software system for the development of LAN and
mainframe applications ($20,000); and $42,060 for the third and final payment
toward the Mainframe Disk Subsystem purchased in FY 1992-93.
The County Executive recommends funding of $1,169,088 for the baseline
budget, plus an additional $45,000 to upgrade mainframe and COB LAN hardware,
$38,000 to finance the General Government's share of a Wide Area Network (WAN)
connecting the COB and the County's 23 Schools, and $37,551 to provide an
additional support analyst for local government. The County Executive also
recommends that Information Services try to fund the balance ($85,000) of its
original $130,000 expanded request for mainframe and LAN hardware upgrades
with funds from the Capital Improvement budget.
One major request not funded in the County Executive's recommendation is
$20,000 to upgrade COB LAN Software which would have upgraded current software
licenses and added new software products and new versions of current software
to the COB LAN.
Mr. Kruger said he would like to explain the benefit of the WAN. They
are attempting the replace the current dependency on a dial-up environment to
the computers in the COB with a direct connection through fiber. This will
have all the school facilities, administrative and other school facilities, as
well as the Courthouse and other County facilities, interconnected for a more
efficient environment for direct connection to E-Mail, for direct data
transfer such as purchase requisitions, personnel data, leave data, payroll
data, etc., as well as Internet connectivity for the instructional side. It
also offers the opportunity to connect to other government agencies for
research for general government and the administrative side of the schools.
He feels there are other applications which have not yet been discovered.
What is being done now is very limited in its capacity.
Ms. Thomas mentioned an item in the Capital Improvements Program (CIP)
for mainframe and software upgrades, etc. Mr. Kruger said the 1995-96 CIP
March 13, 1995 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 8)
0001.50
request contains two things they would like to do in the next year. One of
those has to do with imaging. In the future, it is hoped to put paper into
electronic storage media so that people can retrieve things quicker, and so
the record will take up less space. There is a request in the CIP for $50,000
for that project. Also, they want to reduce the need for a large UPS system
for backup power. As the County gets to newer technology, the demand on power
is reduced as all electronic things are getting smaller and taking less
resources to run.
Mr. Marshall asked if there is a battery backup now. Mr. Kruger said
not on the mainframe. Knowing that a couple of major mainframe pieces of
equipment are to be replaced with more efficient equipment, he delayed
purchase of it. The LAN has a backup, but the mainframe equipment does not.
Mr. Huff said staff could not justify spending $40,000+ for the mainframe when
moving to the network environment. Mr. Kruger said all of the data in the
mainframe is backed up once each day, and there are redundant sets off site in
case of a disaster. Similar procedures apply to the LAN. The backup is of
major importance.
Ms. Thomas said the priority request is for upgrading software licenses
and licenses on the LAN rather than the backup which is part of the CIP. To
return to the operating budget in front of the Board, she wonders how impor-
tant that is. She just came from a conference where she was amazed by the
advances in computers. Many things were demonstrated, one being that all
purchasing decisions, etc. were done by computer. She does not want the
County to get too far behind in technology. If the Board does not approve
upgrading of the software, will the County be losing out? Mr. Tucker said Ms.
Thomas is referring to the LAN software which was not recommended for funding.
Mr. Kruger said the $20,000 that was not funded is a different kind of
request. It has to do with the number of current licenses that would be
provided on the LAN, or potentially the WAN, and that is something that will
have to be balanced with the total operating budget. Some of it must be done.
As to the remarks about things like purchasing, when the WAN is in place,
those things can be put out to the schools and other departments not in the
COB. Expanding the user base provides a better value for the dollar spent.
That is a major reason for the WAN.
There were no further questions from Board members.
Registrar (Board of Elections): Requested, $136,913; recommended,
$127,884. Jackie Harris, Assistant Registrar, was present.
The Registrar is responsible for registering eligible citizens to vote
in Albemarle County, bordering counties and the City of Charlottesville. The
office maintains all voting records, handles all petitions, candidate and
absentee ballots, and supervises all aspects of all elections. The Office is
staffed by the registrar, an assistant registrar and a part-time office
assistant. The County also pays the three-member Board of Elections.
The Registrar's FY 1995-96 budget decreases $821 (0.6%), which reflects
an 18.5 percent decrease in salaries, a 14.7 percent decrease in benefits, and
a 78.7 percent increase in operational accounts. The $16,942 decrease in
compensation costs and the $18,195 increase in operational expenses reflect
the reclassification of payment for 200 election officials as an operational
expense instead of a salary account. The Board of Elections agreed to absorb
a request for a $650 plain paper fax machine into its FY 1994-95 budget.
The County Executive recommends baseline funding for the Board of
Elections. Not included are funds for: Part-time Office Assistant II who
would serve as the absentee ballot clerk for the November, 1995 elections and
then continue as the additional staff needed to handle the workload increase
associated with implementing the NVRA ($5,215); salary supplement for the
Registrar which would increase the registrar's salary by ten percent as is
allowed by the Code of Virginia ($3,164).
Ms. Harris said the increase in operating costs reflects the higher
printing, binding, advertising, postage and copy costs associated with
implementing the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) which is to be
effective in total by January 1, 1996. It appears that the mail registration
portion of that Act will become effective July 1, 1995. It is anticipated
that will be a permanent part of activities in the Registrar's office. A
March 13, 1995 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 9)
000:i.5 .
part-time person was requested to help implement that program. They antici-
pate a 50 percent increase in registration activities such as: changes of
address, deletions, etc. The increase in actual net registrations would be
difficult to pinpoint. They are also anticipating an increase in the amount
of handling they do on a registration. Much of it will be done by untrained
personnel. The mail registration portion means that any person interested can
take forms out into the community and help people fill out the forms needed to
register to vote. Those persons will not be trained to get correct, complete
information from'the registrant. Also, as to agency registrations, they will
need to train personnel in Social Services, disability offices, Armed Services
recruitment offices and the Employment Commission. Every person coming in for
services to these agencies will have to either register to vote, or actively
decline the opportunity. That was the reason for the request for a part-time
office assistant.
Ms. Thomas asked if this workload will be temporary. Ms. Harris said it
is expected to continue. They do anticipate a few implementation costs in
bringing it on line, but it will be a permanent increase.
Ms. Thomas said that at one time she was a lay person helping to
register people. They had very careful training, but still made mistakes.
Jim Heilman was a leader around the State in training volunteers to go out and
register people. Actually, the volunteers caused him many problems. She is
wondering what it will be like when totally untrained people can go door-to-
door and give people registration forms to be mailed in. It will be a major
change in the type of work the office has to do. This office is known
statewide as the office that has done more outreach and got more voters
according to population than any other office she knows of. Ms. Harris said
they do have the lowest staffing currently of any locality in their population
bracket. They feel the requested increase is justified.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the Board funded this part-time person, would that
be the same person already employed. Mr. Harris said uno." It would be
another half-time person.
Mr. Martin said he thinks that with the NVRA it will add a tremendous
increase in time and effort. It would just make good sense to add that part-
time office assistant expecting that it might have to be increased to full-
time the following year. He suggested that this item be added to the unfunded
priority list for discussion later in these work sessions. The other Board
members concurred.
There were no further questions from Board members.
COUNTY JUDICIAL DEPARTMENTS:
Commonwealth's Attorney: Requested, $347,660; recommended, $347,660.
James L. Camblos, III, Commonwealth's Attorney, was present.
The Commonwealth's Attorney, elected by County voters every four years,
is the chief prosecuting officer for Albemarle County. Assisted by three
deputy commonwealth attorneys, a secretary and an administrative assistant,
the office interprets and enforces State laws, advises the police, public
officials and the public regarding criminal matters, prosecutes all felony
cases and presents indictments to grand juries. Salaries for the office are
set by, and reimbursed by, the State Compensation Board. The County is
responsible for part of the benefits and most of the operating expenses of
this office.
The Commonwealth Attorney's budget increases by $43,847 (14.4%) reflect-
ing a 15.6 percent increase in salaries, a 2.3 percent decrease in fringe
benefits, and a 2.4 percent decrease in operational costs. The increase in
salary accounts reflects the impact of a 2.25 percent salary increase for
constitutional officers authorized by the State to begin on December 1, 1995,
and a $7000 salary supplement for an Attorney I in the current year. The
County also agreed to purchase a replacement copier for the office out of the
County's copier fund, reimbursable by this department through a $0.03 charge
for copies which is budgeted in a line item entitled "copy supplies."
Funding is recommended at $347,660, which includes $8500 in additional
funds for a part-time receptionist to provide assistance with answering
telephones and making copies for eight hours a day on the three days per week
March 13, 1995 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 10)
000 52
with the heaviest workload (the workload has increased as crime and arrests
have increased).
Mr. Camblos said the most important request in his budget is that for
the part-time receptionist. He has two very competent people in his office
who had a large amount of overtime the past couple of years because of the
caseload and their inability to get away for lunch. They have had to take
work home. The part-time position is contemplated to work three days a week
as a receptionist and to do light typing and filing. There are some days in
his office when the staff does nothing but answer the telephones because of
the volume of calls. This additional person would help with morale and the
stresses that go with the job. He asked for favorable consideration of the
request.
Mr. Camblos said part of the amount shown for salary increases was due
to the salary adjustments from Richmond because the public defender's offices
were making more money than the commonwealth attorney's offices. The State
did an adjustment as of January 1 so that the public defender and the common-
wealth attorney, plus personnel all the way down the line, make comparable
salaries based on the job being done.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the Board funded the $8500, if there would be a
savings on overtime pay. Mr. Camblos said ~yes." Mr. Bowerman asked how much
it will save. Mr. Camblos said the County just paid more than $6000 to the
two people in his office now. Mr. Bowerman asked if the State or the County
is responsible for that overtime pay. Mr. Tucker said the County is responsi-
ble for that payment. Mr. Bowerman said he thinks this item should be added
to the Unfunded Priority List for discussion later in the work sessions. Mr.
Tucker said the funding is already in the budget.
There were no further questions from Board members.
(Note: At 2:25 p.m., the Board recessed, and reconvened at 2:35 p.m.)
PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENTS:
Police Department: Requested, $5,278,915; recommended, $4,824,272.
John F. Miller, Chief of Police, was present.
The Albemarle County Police Department has the primary responsibility
for law enforcement in the County. The responsibilities of the department are
broken down into seven major divisions: administrative services, community
services, patrol services, investigations, youth services, animal control and
special operations. In prior years, the department was divided into five
divisions which did not adequately reflect the actual programs operated in the
department.
The Police Department's total budget of $4,824,272 increases by $206,093
(4.5%) over the FY 1994-95 appropriation, reflecting a 1.5 percent increase in
salary costs, a 2.1 percent increase in benefits, a 2.1 percent increase in
operations and a 0.6 percent decrease in replacement capital costs. The
increase in salary costs is due to the police performance plan and reorganiza-
tion in the current year. The most significant changes in operational costs
are a 32 percent increase in health examinations, reflecting the impact of
biennial physical examinations for officers under 40 years of age which will
occur again in FY 1995-96; a 74 percent increase in external telecommunica-
tions, reflecting the impact of current year reappropriations for additional
pagers and cellular phones; a 345 percent increase in travel expenses for
additional traffic and accident training; and, a 51 percent decrease in
vehicle and equipment supplies. The reduction in State revenues and the
increase in local revenues reflects the impact of a projected net loss in FY
1995-96 of approximately $44,000 in Police 599 Funds from the State.
Major department reauests not funded in the County Executive's recommen-
dation:
Part-time to Full-time Secretary, Administration $11,341
Uniforms for Police Record Clerks, Administration $3,500
Five Police Patrol Officers $240,743
General Investigator, Investigations $56,118
Part-time to Full-time Property Clerk, Special Operations
Two Traffic Officers, Special Operations $82,424.
$8,863
March 13, 1995 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 11)
ooo sa
The County Executive recommends funding a budget of $4,824,272 which
includes funding for the following expanded programs: $20,000 for a compensa-
tory time fund in order to pay those employees who could not use their
compensatory time within the current year; $5,000 to equip and operate a
bicycle patrol; $6,000 in a contribution to a joint narcotics fund for use by
the Joint Narcotics Units; $103,794 to fund three additional patrol officers
for the COPS Program.
Chief Miller said a critical issue for the Police Department is the
staffing level. They have been trying to reach 1.5 officers for each 1000 in
population. The current level is 1.13 per 1000. Staffing affects their
mission and goes to the heart of the beat/sector system where they are trying
to staff one sergeant and eight officers for both the daylight shift and the
evening shift, and a minimum of one sergeant and six officers for the midnight
shift. Because of staff shortages and vacancies, the Department has been
running one sergeant and seven officers for daylight and evening, and as few
as one sergeant and four officers for the midnight shift.
Chief Miller said the recommended expanded funding in this budget is for
three additional police officers at $103,000+. That amount represents a 25
percent match under the Crime Bill should the bill remain intact. If the
Crime Bill does change and officers cannot be obtained through the grant
system, then this money would be used to hire two police officers.
Chief Miller said another expanded program is a $6000 contribution to
the Narcotics Fund. Over the last year, the amount of money being captured
through seizures has begun to dwindle. It is harder to get access to the
money, and the Federal government is backing down on seizing property. He
said the three agencies (City, County, University) have agreed to put $6000
into a pool to operate the three units. The County's contribution to this
fund was supposed to be $18,000 because there are three officers assigned to
narcotics, but they are requesting that only one be funded.
Chief Miller said that $20,000 is requested to pay for compensatory
time. Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Department must pay the
compensatory time that is earned by employees in the year in which it is
earned. It is estimated that there will be a $34,000 pay-out in August. The
County Executive is recommending that $14,000 of that amount be paid out of
the Department's current budget.
Mr. Martin asked about the contribution to the joint Narcotics Unit.
Chief Miller said it was agreed that to run the unit an amount of $6000 would
be needed for each officer assigned to that unit. Currently, the County has
three officers assigned. The recommendation is to fund one at $6000 with an
unfunded priority of the other $12,000. Mr. Tucker said staff does not yet
know what amount the other agencies will fund.
Ms. Thomas asked how the County's contribution compares to what the
others agencies fund. Chief Miller said the University has three officers,
but the city has six officers assigned to this unit.
Ms. Humphris said she has no idea how to prioritize the major department
requests which were not recommended for funding. Chief Miller said his first
priority would be personnel to try to get to the 1.5 officers per 1000
population. His second priority would be for overtime funds for traffic
enforcement and other areas where flexibility is needed when problems arise.
Mr. Martin if the COPS programs falls through, this budget as recom-
mended by the County Executive will cover only two additional officers for the
coming year. Chief Miller said that is correct. Mr. Martin asked how many
additional officers were funded last year. Chief Miller said it was two. Mr.
Martin asked about the year before that. Mr. Tucker said it was five.
Ms. Thomas said it is clear that the County is falling behind on
staffing. Chief Miller said as the population increases, that is true. Ms.
Thomas said an easy way to add a small amount of money to have an effect, is
to add to overtime funds. Chief Miller said contractual overtime is about
$75,000, with regular overtime (courts, call backs, shift extensions, etc.)
being about $138,000. The $75,000 for contractual overtime is money that is
returned to the County from the people for which the work is performed.
March 13, 1995 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 12)
000 54
Mr. Martin mentioned the three additional patrol officers at $103,794
and on the other side there are five patrol officers at $240,000. He asked
the difference between these officers. Chief Miller said the officers coming
through the grant would not come with capital outlay funds. Mr. Huff said the
way they are listed in the budget, these people would be hired in January
instead of July, thus making it only a six-month salary and all the capital
costs. At 70,000 population, it would take 22 officers to get to the 1.5
officers per 1000. Chief Miller said he is not prepared to say the County
needs that many officers, but there is a need to get on some schedule to hire
officers to address short staffing.
Ms. Humphris said she thinks some funds should be added to this budget,
but is at a loss to know what to recommend. Mr. Martin said he thinks the
Board should add the additional $12,000 for the joint Narcotics Fund. He
would take the $6000 out of the baseline budget, and then put the entire
$18,000 on the Unfunded Priority List until it is known what the City and
University will do.
Mr. Martin said he wants to be sure the County gets the three additional
patrol officers, however they are funded. Mr. Tucker suggested funding one
additional officer, and if the COPS money is not received, that adds the third
officer, but if it does come through, that adds a fourth officer. There was
consensus to add the one officer for the full year.
Mr. Bowerman asked if Chief Miller feels it is realistic to fill the
empty positions, plus add new officers and get them all trained, etc. Chief
Miller said he would recommend that they be hired for six months. The
Department has five vacancies to fill at this time.
There was no further discussion of this budget item.
Emergency Operations Center (EOC): Requested, $449,686; recommended,
$449,686. Wayne S. Campagna, Director, was present.
The Emergency Operations Center (EOC) (911) created by Albemarle County,
the City of Charlottesville and the University of Virginia in 1984 provides
emergency communications for the region. The Center receives all 911 calls in
the area and serves as a central dispatch for the three local police depart-
ments. In FY 1995-96 the E-911 building locator system will become opera-
tional.
The County, City and University share the costs of the Emergency
Operations Center based on the number of service calls, population and crime
rate in the prior year. The FY 1995-96 allocation of nonmedical dispatching
costs are $445,466 (48.88%) to Charlottesville, $338,474 (37.14%) to Albemarle
County and $127,407 (13.98%) to the University. The costs of emergency
medical dispatching are shared with the City. The University does not pay for
any of the medical dispatching. The County's share of medical dispatching is
$111,212 or 55 percent to the City's $90,991 or 45 percent.
Albemarle's overall percentage share of the EOC's budget is 39.97
percent based on the share contributions listed above, which requires a total
contribution of $449,686, an increase of $24,556 (5.8%) over FY 1994-95.
The County Executive recommends baseline funding for the Emergency
Operations Center at $449,686.
There were no questions from Board members.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENTS:
Inspections: Requested, $638,772; recommended, $614,551. Jesse R.
Hurt, Director, was present.
The Inspections Department is responsible for ensuring public health,
safety and welfare in so far as they are affected by the design, construction
and use of buildings. The department reviews all plans for compliance with
the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code. Since January of 1993, the
Inspections Department has not been responsible for the enforcement of the
Basic Fire Prevention Code.
March 13, 1995 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 13)
0001.55
The FY 1995-96 baseline budget request of the Inspections Department is
$614,551, reflecting a one percent increase over FY 1994-95. This increase
reflects a 2.7 percent increase in salaries, a 2.2 percent increase in
benefits, a 4.1 percent increase in operating costs and a net 31.9 percent
decrease in capital outlay. There are no significant increases in operating
expenditures. The $19,929 request for replacement capital equipment repre-
sents a $2400 request for a replacement sofa, chair and partition for the
Department lobby area and a $17,529 request for a replacement pickup truck.
The County Executive recommends baseline funding for the Inspections
Department in the amount of $614,551, which reflects a small adjustment for a
projected increase in the cost of replacement motor vehicles in FY 1995-96.
No expanded requests are funded in the County Executive's recommendation.
Major department request not funded in the County Executive's recommen-
dation: Inspections Documentationalist - funding for a full-time person who
would also serve as a receptionist now that renovations to the Inspections
Central Intake Office have been completed. This person is needed to meet the
additional work load created by an increase in requests for permits. The cost
of this position includes $2,500 for a computer - $25,750.
Mr. Hurt said his department was renovated in order to establish a
central intake office. The office furniture is for that new space. That is
the only increase requested.
Ms. Thomas asked what type of increase there has been in the workload of
the Department. Mr. Hurt said there has been a significant increase, and
particularly during the past three months. He had requested a new position
for the front office so that person would act as receptionist.
Ms. Humphris asked about that request and if the request is urgent. Mr.
Hurt said that often people have to stand and wait to apply for permits. He
has been trying to streamline the process. There are three people taking
permit applications, and quite often the office manager is assisting in this
work. One of those people has to serve as receptionist for the office, while
answering the telephone and occasionally typing letters.
Mr. Marshall said he had to wait thirty minutes to get a permit. Mr.
Tucker said the office has peak hours for service. Mr. Hurt said that often
it is busy all day. Telephone calls have to be put on hold because they just
can't be answered fast enough. Ms. Humphris asked if people complain. Mr.
Hurt said "yes." Ms. Humphris said the Board has often talked about stream-
lining the process and giving good service to the citizens. If this is a
genuine bottleneck, she thinks the Board should do something about it.
Ms. Thomas said she knows that in general many department are working to
streamline and make things more efficient without adding more employees. She
asked if this department has worked at doing that. Mr. Huff said the County
Executive's recommendation did not include this position because staff felt
the renovations needed to be finished first. Staff feels that some of the
structural changes will improve the flow through that office. There has been
no opportunity to see the effect of that and its impact on Department staff.
They did a trend of the number of permits over the last four years. They have
worked hard trying to streamline this process and hope to free up time for
those four people to do other tasks. It does take one person out of the
service mode to operate the front desk. The question is whether the other
three people can handle the service needs, and that has not been answered yet.
Ms. Humphris said staff may have the answer to that question in three
months, but if there are no funds in the budget, these funds would not get
into the budget for a year. Mr. Tucker suggested that the Board set aside
some funds in its reserve until the analysis is completed. Ms. Humphris
agreed. She suggested the funds be included on the Unfunded Priority List.
Mr. Perkins asked if there are people in the building who might be able
to help out during a busy time and then go to another department to help there
during similar circumstances. He said that is what corporations do. When
things get busy, they don't hire people, but start to work overtime. That is
cheaper in the short run.
Mr. Marshall asked if it is possible that developers who have multiple
permit requests could fax the requests to the office in advance and the County
bill them on a monthly basis, or something similar. Mr. Hurt said the office
March 13, 1995 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 14)
000 56
has established a line of credit for some people by having them pay an amount
in advance, and then receive their permit by telephone.
Ms. Thomas praised the department for streamlining and trying to give
the customer quicker service, but she does not want to add another employee if
that is not the right solution. Mr. Hurt said the office had another em-
ployee, but that position was lost to fire prevention when the Fire/Rescue
Division was formed.
Mr. Bowerman suggested putting one-half of the requested amount on the
Unfunded Priority List. If in a few months staff determines it is needed,
they can find the additional funds somewhere to fund the position.
There were no further questions from Board members.
Engineering: Requested, $839,066; recommended, $808,056. Jo M.
Higgins, Director, was present.
The Engineering Department reviews the design and construction of new
residential and commercial construction in the County in addition to providing
designs for various County projects such as drainage, stormwater detention
basins, park facilities, roads and walkways. The Department administers the
Runoff Control Ordinance, the Stormwater Detention Ordinance, the Erosion
Control Ordinance and assists citizens with obtaining new street lighting and
street signs. This office also handles capital projects in the Capital
Improvement Program (CIP) and E-911 sign maintenance for the County.
The Engineering Department is staffed by a director of engineering, a
chief engineer, an engineering assistant, an administrative secretary, an
office assistant, four civil engineers, five engineering inspectors (one of
whom is assigned to sign maintenance), a capital projects coordinator and an
erosion control enforcement officer. Although all programs are managed by
Engineering, the Sign Maintenance Program, Water Resources Management and the
Solid Waste budgets are shown separately.
The Engineering budget increases by $141,640 (21.3%) reflecting a 12.4
percent increase in compensation, a 12.4 percent increase in fringe benefits,
a 16 percent increase in operations and a net decrease of $9800 in capital
purchases. The increase in salary and compensation costs reflects the
addition of an administrative secretary as part of the reorganization between
the Zoning and Engineering Departments in FY 1994-95 and vacancies being
filled by other County senior employees.
The most significant change in the combined operating budgets of
Engineering is a net increase of $8391 in electrical service costs due to the
combined effect of adding $11,500 in electrical service costs of CIP Street
Light Projects to the Engineering baseline budget and a projected five percent
decrease in electrical rates in FY 1995-96. The Engineering Department also
requests only $900 in replacement capital equipment for chairs and a printer
stand and agreed to fund an additional expanded request of $2150 for a level
and other ancillary equipment out of its FY 1994-95 baseline budget.
The County Executive recommends funding the Engineering Department's
budget of $808,056, which includes funding for several expanded program
requests including $45,740 to upgrade a temporary full-time civil engineer II
position to a permanent full-time position for the purpose of reducing plan
review time and in order to facilitate responsiveness to the development
community; and, an additional $21,360 for a project manager/inspector (hired
in January) to oversee the County's capital improvement projects. These
projects include over $35.0 million in major school construction projects,
$6.0 million in ongoing projects, several joint County/City projects such as
the new E-911 Center and the $16.0 million Joint Security Complex (Jail)
expansion.
Major department rec,~est not funded in the County Executive's recommen-
dation is:
Household Water Quality Testing Program - This request will fund
the Virginia Cooperative Extension Household Water Quality Program
which the Board of Supervisors requested after reviewing the pilot
groundwater protection study presented in November, 1994 -
$10,500.
March 13, 1995 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 15)
000:1.57
Ms. Higgins said she would like to mention a couple of areas. There are
several street light projects which were initiated by the Planning Department
for sections between existing street lights where objections were received as
to their placement. The Street Lighting Policy states that if an objection is
received, the lights will not be placed. The Policy is not workable as
applied to these types of projects. The Policy will need to be rewritten and
brought to this Board for approval. That is a possible savings in this budget
of between $10,000 for the year, or $5000 for six months.
Ms. Miggins said there is $10,500 on the Unfunded Priority List for the
expanded well water testing program. After the Groundwater Protection Study
which was updated in 1993, there was a pilot groundwater study. In the report
that came to the Board on November 2, 1994, the Board asked staff to 10ok into
how to carry the pilot program to other regions in the County. This program
would be through the VPI-SU Extension Service. If an individual had the test
and paid for it on his own, the cost is about $170. Staff has tried to get
the cost of the program down to about $15. If the County does not have the
money to put into the program, the Extension Service will not do the program
this Summer. There are 500 homeowners around the County who could partici-
pate, divided into 100 per region. Staff felt it was an initiative the Board
wanted to pursue.
Ms. Miggins said in previous years the Board had funded $5000 to
reimburse people who cleaned up illegal dump sites. The Task Force on Illegal
Dumping will have a recommendation coming to the Board soon. The general
feeling is that an effort has to be made to clean up illegal dumping, and some
of it involves having equipment to lift objects or to be able to access steep
slopes where items have been dumped. She had requested $20,000 for that, and
it is recommended to be funded at $10,000.
Ms. Miggins said she had requested that a temporary engineer position be
changed to a permanent position. Quite often the Board asks for review of
certain items when approving requests on the agenda. The department is also
involved in stormwater drainage complaints which take a lot of investigation.
Engineering gets assigned to a lot of special projects, such as: industrial
access road fund projects, pump and haul permits, etc. Staff does not feel it
can meet the expectations of the turnaround on development review without
keeping the position that they have had since last September.
Ms. Higgins said the last thing she will mention is the Capital Projects
staff. At this time, there is an RFP out for six elementary school projects,
and the three high school projects. Over the next 14 months, these projects
will be in design. Beginning by mid-1996, they will be taking on significant
capital projects over the next four or five years. This person is critical to
overseeing this work.
Ms. Thomas asked if one project manager/inspector is adequate. This is
an area where the County can lose money if it is not good at managing the big
capital projects. She asked if this one person will be handling all of the
capital projects. Ms. Miggins said there are actually three people already.
This is an additional person. They do education projects, and also share in
the jointly-funded projects, for instance: the Health Department and the
Joint Security Complex, if that project is funded. Between the City and the
County they trade the lead, but there also has to be someone involved all the
time. If a problem occurs, the solution can then be brought to the Board for
discussion. One of the inspectors is working on Berkmar Drive at this time.
The inspectors have become certified in road inspection also. When there are
projects going on during the school year and students are in the building, it
increases their effort to keep things running smoothly. Ms. Higgins said they
can use the funds provided and see if the funds are will be adequate.
Mr. Perkins asked about Berkmar Drive which will be turned over to the
State for maintenance. Me asked if VDOT has inspectors there also. Ms.
Miggins said the road is a revenue-sharing project, and is being built to the
County's Subdivision road standards. The County is just like any developer,
and VDOT will accept the road into the State system upon completion. Mr.
Perkins said he wondered if there were any duplication of efforts. Ms.
Miggins said VDOT will not be involved until the road is completed.
Ms. Thomas said she feels the water testing program needs to be in-
cluded. The pilot study took place in her district, and she was impressed at
the number of households that had problems with their water supply who did not
March 13, 1995 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 16)
000 .55
know there was a problem. The program will not happen unless the Board puts
in its share of the money. Ms. Higgins said making it feasible to get the
participation rate is an issue. To have public meetings and have people bring
in water samples will take a level of effort that these dollars will not pay
for. That would be done by the Extension Service and other County staff
members. If no importance is placed on the problem by this Board, the
Extension Office does not want to make the effort to make it happen. Staff
put together this program because of what this Board requested last Fall.
Mr. Tucker asked if this program is part of the function of the Water
Resource Manager. Ms. Higgins said the funds are to go directly to education
and to pay for subsidizing the samples in order to get the cost down to $15.
Ms. Thomas said with the new regulations it is more important that people know
what the quality of their well water is. Also, she sees a greater push for
people to use wells as there are more and more questions about the quantity of
public water supplies. She asked to put it on the Unfunded Priority List for
discussion later in these work sessions. Ms. Humphris agreed. Ms. Higgins
said with the deferral on the Street Light Program, those funds might be used
for this program and there would be a zero net effect on the Department's
total budget. Mr. Tucker said staff would work with Ms. Higgins to arrive at
an appropriate amount to be considered later.
There were no further questions from Board members.
Water Resources Management: Requested, $49,504; recommended, $49,504.
Jo Higgins, Director of Engineering, was present.
The Water Resources Management Official, a position which was created in
1980 by the City of Charlottesville and the County of Albemarle, and which is
funded through the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA), is responsible
for coordinating all local ordinances related to soil erosion, sedimentation
runoff and stormwater detention. In addition, the water resources management
official reviews all land use development plans to insure that present and
future development activities will not adversely affect the community's water
supply. The office is staffed by a full-time water resources manager.
The division's baseline budget increases by $1,879 (3.9%) which reflects
a 2.5 percent increase in salaries, a 9.1 percent increase in benefits and a
4.4 percent increase in operating costs. No major increases or decreases are
reflected in this budget.
The County Executive recommends funding at the baseline level of
$49,504. There are no expanded requests.
Ms. Humphris said she had a question about the statement "the water
resources management official reviews all land use development plans to insure
that present and future development activities will not adversely affect the
community's water supply." Ms. Higgins said the County has a Water Resources
Protection Areas Ordinance. If development intrudes into a WRPA setback,
David Hirschman reviews the plan since the ordinance allows imposition of a
BMP mitigation plan. Anything in Runoff Control is reviewed by him also.
There is a grant and there are two interns who are looking at all runoff
control facilities that have been built over the years. These facilities have
not been tracked to see if they work, or are even still in place.
Ms. Humphris asked why the sentence does not say "... to insure that the
community's water supply will not be adversely affected by present and future
development activities .... " Ms. Higgins said she believes the sentence could
have constructed differently.
There were no further questions from Board members.
Staff Services: Requested, $913,056; recommended, $913,056. A1
Waugaman, Director, was present.
The Department of Staff Services is responsible for the efficient
operation, safety and maintenance of seven County government buildings and the
supervision of minor construction and/or remodeling of County structures.
Staff Services also supervises the day-to-day operations of the copy center,
mail room, stockroom and the pool car fleet. This department is divided into
four divisions: the administrative division oversees operations; the mainte-
March 13, 1995 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 17)
000 .59
nance division repairs the buildings; the custodial division cleans the office
buildings; and, the copy center handles large internal printing jobs.
The budget of the Staff Services Department has increased by $19,704
(2.2%) reflecting a 2.5 percent increase in salaries, a 0.7 percent increase
in benefits, a 0.2 percent decrease in operating costs and a $12,060 increase
in capital outlay. Significant changes in the budget include a combined
$12,500 decrease in repair and maintenance costs due to a decrease in expected
building repairs and the coverage under warranty of contracted building work,
an $8000 increase in electrical service costs and a $2400 increase in heating
services due to a proposed rate increase of five to six percent. A replace-
ment motor vehicle at $12,060 is requested for the motor pool fleet.
The County Executive recommends funding at the baseline level of
$913,056. There are no expanded requests.
Mr. Waugaman said the requested vehicle is to replace a vehicle which
has over 137,000 miles and which was a second-hand vehicle when it was added
to the fleet. He offered to answer questions.
There were no questions from Board members.
PARKS AND RECREATION/HUVLAN SERVICE DEPARTMENTS:
Social Services: Requested, $4,104,699; recommended, $3,580,026. Karen
Morris, Director, present.
The Social Services Department is a locally-administered, State-super-
vised system which endeavors to promote the well-being of County residents
through programs that help families become self-sufficient, as well as provide
assistance to individuals and families. An administrative board, consisting
of six members appointed by the Board of Supervisors, sets policy and oversees
the operations of the Department. The Department administers ten benefit
programs which provide direct or indirect cash assistance or income supplemen-
tation. They include: Medicaid, food stamps, aid to dependent children, fuel
assistance, auxiliary grants to adult homes, ADCU, emergency assistance,
State/local hospitalization, general relief and refugee assistance.
The Department also provides eight broad categories of direct services:
adult protective services, adult services, child protective services, employ-
ment services, family services, foster care, adoption and day care. Services
are also purchased in foster care placement and companion care.
The total budget of the Department of Social Services increases by
$281,583 (8.5%), which reflects a 1.6 percent increase in compensation, a four
percent increase in benefits, a 17 percent increase in operations and a
decrease of $425 in capital.
Ms. Morris said there are six cost centers in the budget. The service
program cost center increase represents a full year of funding for the
programs for which the State has been writing the checks. The County now has
to write the checks and fund the State's share of some programs. There are
some project increases in child day care primarily due to welfare reform.
That is the only cost center in the Social Services budget that shows any
increase. Everything else remains about the same. The Department is still
finding out what welfare reform will mean in the State of Virginia. Kathy
Ralston is an expert on the subject.
Ms. Thomas said she understands 700 jobs in this area are needed for
people now on welfare. She asked if that will cause an increase in the
Employment Services part of the budget, and will the State fund that? Ms.
Ralston said in Albemarle there could be a need for about 158 jobs. In the
City of Charlottesville, it would be about 400 jobs. They don't know what
agencies will be involved. The bill requires that it be statewide, but there
is no money to do that.
Ms. Morris said that in the Rental Assistance Program, $5000 was not
recommended for the county-funded Family Self-Sufficiency worker who assists
clients with transportation and other costs related to attending school,
training or securing employment. She requested that it be put on the list of
Unfunded Priorities.
March 13, 1995 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 18)
000160
Ms. Thomas asked if this program will be impacted by the Housing
Coordinator moving that office to deal with Housing Section 8 and other
programs. Ms. White said the Housing Counselor would be providing some other
functions not necessarily connected with the FSS unit. The FSS unit would use
this $5000 to fund additional expenses associated with going to school, etc.
Housing counseling with be focused on how to secure housing, how to secure
loans, etc. They are separate functions.
Ms. Thomas asked if this is a major problem. Do Family Self-Sufficiency
clients get to the point of going for a job interview and they can't make it
because they don't have the transportation or child care? Ms. Morris said
that is correct. Sometimes it may be something as small as needing a uniform
for a job.
Mr. Martin asked if this request will come back to the Board under
Housing. Ms. White said ~yes." Mr. Martin said he would like to get some
more information. His inclination is to add it to the list of Unfunded
Priories, but he always tries to make a distinction between programs that help
people trying to help themselves, and programs that just try to help. His own
clients often want everything done for them. He wants to be sure the program
is making that distinction, and what is being requested is to offset a real
hindrance to the client obtaining employment.
Ms. Morris said there is the same kind of concern regarding the Employ-
ment Services Program where they have a small amount of money to help people.
Problems with automobiles are common, lack of insurance, repairs, etc.
Mr. Perkins asked if the Board wanted to wait for the presentation on
the Rental Assistance Program before adding this to the Unfunded Priority
List. It was the consensus to wait.
There were no further questions from Board members.
Parks and Recreation: Requested, $1,002,119; recommended, $986,814.
Patrick K. Mullaney, Director, present.
The Department of Parks and Recreation provides recreational facilities
and leisure opportunities to residents of Albemarle County. The Department
offers a full schedule of supervised recreational activities, including
swimming programs, and is responsible for providing administration and grounds
maintenance to all County parks, as well as the Darden Towe Memorial Park
(formerly the Rivanna Park) and the Teen Center. The Department is responsi-
ble for grounds maintenance at the County Office Building, for the buildings
on Court Square and at other County facilities (Walnut Creek, Chris Greene,
Mint Springs, Beaver Creek, Totier, Ivy Creek, Crozet Park, Whitewood Road
Park, Greenwood Community Center, Meadows Community Center, Scottsville
Community Center, and the Milton, Hatton, Warren and Scottsville boat
launches). The responsibilities of the Department are broken down into six
major divisions: Administration, Parks Maintenance, Summer Swim Programs,
Recreation and Athletics Classes, Community Centers and Special Activities.
Two City/County programs are separate funds: the Teen Center and the Darden
Towe Memorial Park.
The overall Parks and Recreation budget increases by $23,996 (2.5%) to a
total of $986,814. This reflects a 1.4 percent increase in salaries, a 5.7
percent decrease in benefits, a 1.9 percent increase in operations and a $3540
increase in capital item replacements.
Major department requests not funded in the County Executive's recommen-
dation are:
Slope Mower - Needed for cutting steep slopes at Towe Park
$15,055
Pool Rental Fees - Request from the Charlottesville YMCA Aquatics
Club (CYAC) for assistance with pool rental fees for the purpose
of reducing fees charged to program users by ten percent and to
permit the CYAC to grant scholarships for County swimmers who
cannot afford the current fee $9,575.
The County Executive recommends funding at the baseline level of
$986,814, which includes $11,330 in additional funds for operating expenses
and four cashiers for the Greenwood Arts and Crafts Fair. In the current year
March 13, 1995 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 19)
000 .6
the County took over operations of this show, which previously had been run by
the Greenwood Arts and Crafts Fair chairperson. If the County takes over the
operation of the show, Parks and Recreation predicts that total revenues could
be $17,400, out of which $11,400 are new revenues. Funding is recommended in
the amount of $2000 for 100 hours of additional off-duty police security at
the Warren Ferry river access. Currently, the James River Runners fund one-
half of the cost of security with the County funding the other half. These
funds will be needed if the County secures a lease agreement or purchases a
property at the Warren Ferry to provide adequate parking and preserve the
river access.
Mr. Mullaney said the recommended funding will fund salary increases for
their part-time employees and bring the salaries of lifeguards and recreation
leaders up to a competitive level with the City; it continues funding for the
maintenance of the Route 20 Entrance Corridor; it allows replacement of some
mowing equipment; and, it funds an increase of $3235 in the therapeutic
playground program. That is necessary because of an increased staff ratio
demanded by state licensing requirements. Although the baseline budget
maintains the current level of services, Parks will pick up additional work
such as the routine maintenance of six Little League fields, which includes
weekly mowing and dragging of those fields. Parks has taken steps to increase
efficiency by eliminating 290 hours from the lifeguard schedule through a
restructuring based on peak swimming hours. Self-sustaining programs were
revised in order to decrease expenses and increase revenues. In particular,
they have cut the schedule of exercise classes because the private clubs are
taking away some clients. The Over-30 Men's Basketball League which is a
program the YMCA ran before they lost their Park Street gym, has been dropped.
Mr. Mullaney said the budget does not fund $9575 requested by the
Charlottesville YMCA Aquatics Club (CYAC) for its swim program and it does not
fund the cost of 10 replacement picnic tables and grills which they will try
to fund out of the current budget.
Mr. Martin said he would like to put at least a portion of the cost of
the swim pool rental fees on the list. Ms. Humphris said she was going to ask
for more information on this item, the pros/cons, precedents, what kind of
priority this is, and how this compares to other things the Board is asked to
do. She is not sure this is an area into which the Board should venture given
the fact that the swim club is in competition.
Mr. Martin said he is just suggesting that the issue be kept alive and
get more information. He would like to know whether it would be precedent
setting, the cost, who is being served, etc. Ms. Humphris said the only
number she came up with is that the amount comes to about $78 for each
Albemarle County participant. That is a lot of money for a recreation
program. Comparing this to all of the other priorities the Board has put on
the list today, it does not measure up.
Mr. Mullaney said the request is reduced from what CYAC originally
requested. Twenty-two thousand dollars represented 72 percent of the total
rental fee they are paying. CYAC was told that the County could not support
the request because it included people in competitive swimming, people
swimming six or more times per week. The request made to the Board makes the
program equal to the other youth sports activities where two hours per week
are provided for practice and competition. The $9575 would cover two hours of
pool time per week for each person in the swim program. CYAC will give the
County that amount of money in scholarships for scholarship swimmers applying
for the program. He suggested that if the Board is interested in this
program, that the money be disbursed just for scholarship requests. That way,
the County would truly be serving people who cannot afford to be in the
program.
Mr. Martin said he would like to see the additional information. He has
heard complaints many times about the costs of the swim programs. Since the
County does not have any swimming pools, and fees must be paid, it makes the
cost large. Mr. Mullaney said the request from Parks only goes toward pool
rental. It does not cover other CYAC expenses such as coaches.
Ms. Humphris asked who would determine the need for a scholarship. Mr.
Mullaney said the department would handle that the same way they now handle
the summer swim program. People have to come in and qualify through the
Social Services Department.
March 13, 1995 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 20)
O00 t3
Ms. Humphris said she is leery of this because she feels the County is
being stampeded. Any time there is a push for something like this with little
information being furnished to justify the request, she feels the County is
liable to be pushed into something just because of the persistence of the
people doing it. She wants to be sure it is compared with other things the
County does'.
Ms. Thomas asked if the James River Runners is still paying one-half of
the cost of security at the Warren site. Mr. Mullaney said at the time the
County takes over ownership or lease of that property, he thinks that would
become the County's total responsibility. The Runners might then have to pay
a fee to use the property. It will depend on what can be worked out with Mr.
Hawranke, the current property owner.
Darden Towe Memorial Park: Requested, $187,435; recommended, $104,995.
Darden Towe Memorial Park is a 100-acre multi-use recreational facility
offering softball fields, a little league baseball field, tennis courts,
picnic shelters, multi-purpose fields, a running trail, river access and
nature activities. The park also contains a 7300 foot section of the Rivanna
Greenway. The expenses of the Park are shared by the City (38.3%) and County
(61.7%), with the County Department of Parks and Recreation being responsible
for the operation of the facility.
The County employs four full-time personnel including a park foreman, a
senior groundskeeper and two groundskeepers. One part-time laborer is hired
during the Summer months to assist with grounds maintenance. Staff duties
include grass mowing and trimming, the care and operation of the irrigation
system, turf, landscape and building care, safety inspections, trash pickup,
and preparing playing fields and courts for activities. The City is in charge
of scheduling the softball games at Towe Park and the County schedules all
other activities.
The total budget for Towe Memorial Park is $191,270, an increase of
$6630 (3.6%) over FY 1994-95. The County's share of the budget is $104,995,
or an increase of $8200 (8.5%) over FY 1994-95. Parks and Recreation will
attempt to fund a $5555 expanded program request for a turf mower out of the
current year's budget for Towe Park. Recreation fees of $16,600 account for
approximately 0.09 percent of the total budgeted revenues.
The County Executive recommends funding at the baseline level of
$104,995. No expanded requests are funded in the County Executive's recommen-
dation.
Mr. Mullaney said there are two reasons for the increase in this budget.
An increase of $1395 in insurance is due to a more accurate breakdown in costs
by the County's insurance carrier. The other is $6100 for replacement of an
equipment item. If those two items are deducted, the budget actually de-
creased by five-tenths of one percent. The budget maintains the current level
of service, and they are going to try to add the regular maintenance of the
7300 feet of the Rivanna Greenway. The County's share of funding actually
goes up about 8.5 percent, half of that increase being a result of the two
items just mentioned. The other half of that increase is due to an increase
in the County's responsibility from 59.5 percent to 61.7 percent. At Towe
Park, the operating expenses are determined by the past two years attendance.
Ms. Humphris said she has a question about the slope mower. It is noted
that it takes 10 employee days to mow now as compared to two employee days to
mow using a slope mower. She said there is no comparison of costs furnished.
Mr. Mullaney said Parks is using a slope mower at Towe Park which is borrowed
from their regular crew. They are using it on weekends because that is the
only time the regular crew is not using it. There is no compensation for this
back into the regular Parks/Recreation budget. That is basically the only way
to get the work done at Towe Park, and especially the large slope going down
to the ballfields from the main parking lot. This is the mower used on the
dams where the rider stays upright through a swivel on the hillsides. The
only other option is to walk it.
Mr. Perkins said he believes the grass is mowed too much. Maybe it
should not be mowed more than two or three times a year. Mr. Mullaney said
the Towe Park is an urban area park and the level of expectation there from
March 13, 1995 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 21)
000 63
residents in the City is higher than what the County has at some of its parks.
There were no further questions about this item at this time.
Teen Center: Requested, $41,168; recommended, $41,168.
The Charlottesville-Albemarle Teen Center is a division of the Parks and
Recreation Department, and is a cooperative operation between the City of
Charlottesville and the County. It was created at the recommendation of the
Charlottesville/Albemarle Children and Youth Commission and provides a place
for teens ages 13 to 19 to gather and to socialize in a safe, supervised,
substance free environment.
The Center is run by teens for teens. Activities encourage opportuni-
ties for education, socialization, career development and cultivating of
recreational interests. The center is drug free, smoke free, and alcohol
free. Satellite activities also are planned at other locations throughout the
County. The program is supervised by a full-time teen center director and
part-time employees working a total of 1768 hours. The program is adminis-
tered by the County and funded equally by the City and the County.
The total budget for the Teen Center is $82,336, the County's share
being $41,168. The increase over the FY 1994-95 adopted budget is $693
(1.7%). Major categories of expenses for the center are approximately $35,805
in compensation, $7610 in benefits, $28,730 in lease and utility costs and the
remaining $10,191 is for other operating expenses.
The County Executive recommends baseline funding for the Teen Center,
with the County's share being $41,168.
Mr. Mullaney said the County was notified by the City a week ago that
the City wants their share to be reduced to 33 percent of the budget to
reflect usage by City teens. Now that the Center is operational, they were
going to target activities which would increase participation by City teens.
The Center opened in March, 1994 and the lease runs until January, 1996. He
will talk to City staff about this. There are several options if the City
sticks with this plan, but staff has no recommendation at this time.
Mr. Tucker said staff knows what the City is trying to do. A lot
depends on what this Board feels the County should apply to the Teen Center.
Staff will bring back a definitive proposal with costs attached.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENTS:
Planning: Requested, $876,319; recommended, $794,561. V. Wayne
Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development, was present.
The Department of Planning and Community Development is responsible for
reviewing and developing plans that reflect County concerns over the preserva-
tion of the environment, the provision of efficient public facilities and
services, the provision of housing opportunities, and the effective utiliza-
tion of the area's land resources. The Department is composed of two divi-
sions. The Community Development Division is responsible for the development
and maintenance of the Comprehensive Plan and other long-range planning
activities in transportation, housing and public facilities. The Planning
Division is responsible for the review of development applications, adminis-
tration and enforcement of the Subdivision Ordinance, Site Plan Ordinance,
review of special use permits and rezoning applications.
The Planning Department budget decreases by a total of $60,645 (8.3%)
reflecting a 0.1 percent decrease in salaries, a 1.2 percent decrease in
benefits, a 0.6 percent decline in operations and a decrease of $2850 in
capital purchases. The decline in salary and benefit costs is due largely to
staff changes in the current year which resulted in lower salaries for some
positions. Significant changes in the line item budget include a $6135
(1680%) increase in repair and maintenance of office equipment to cover the
Building Locator System. Planning will attempt to fund the following expanded
program requests out of its current year budget: Three, four-drawer filing
cabinets for $750, three, two-way portable radios for $2400, and archiving
official zoning map records for $3000.
March 13, 1995 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 22)
000 64
Funding for the Planning Department is recommended at $794,561, which
includes funding for the following expanded program requests: $25,956 to fund
the GIS technician position on a permanent basis; $15,000 of a total $25,000
request for printing and binding of the revised Comprehensive Plan; and,
$25,000 for new aerial photography of the County. Funding for the GIS
technician, who is actually paid out of E-911 revenues, is contingent upon
approval of a proposed increase in the E-911 maintenance surcharge from $0.64
to $0.70, currently recommended to go into effect in May, 1996.
The County Executive recommends partial funding of printing and binding
costs of the Comprehensive Plan due to a lower projected cost of producing the
report than was originally requested. Finally, the aerial photography is
needed to update critical geographic information used by staff, developers and
the general public in assessing development activity and environmental
resource protection. The last aerial photographs were made in the early 1990s
and new information is needed for use in conjunction with the Building Locator
System (E-911), as well as other planning uses.
Major department requests not included in the County Executive's
recommendation are: Funding in the amount of $15,608 to upgrade a part-time
planner position to a full-time senior planner position reflecting the impact
of having the Comprehensive Plan review and the Building Locator System being
placed in the Planning Department; and, the County was requested to extend bus
service out to Wal-Mart on Route 29 North. A contract with the Charlottes-
ville Transit Service (CTS) to provide regular bus service to Wal-Mart would
cost $50,000.
Mr. Cilimberg with the building locator system coming on line, staffing
will be affected. He had included in the budget a position to operate the
building locator system on a daily basis. It was found during work on the E-
911 system that the Resource Planner was very involved with getting the street
names and addresses on-line and meeting the public demands. It is anticipated
that will not change a lot. At one time, about fifty percent of that person's
time was used in Community Development. In effect, that division lost half of
one position. Therefore, it was requested to upgrade a part-time planner
position to a full-time senior planner position, particularly with Community
Development's responsibility for the Comprehensive Plan, with the fiscal
impact model going into effect soon, and to have some flexibility in dealing
with time expectations.
Mr. Bowerman said the Local Government Advisory Committee's Council on
Information Management, just paid for a satellite spread of the State of
Virginia. He suggested that Mr. Cilimberg check to see is this would help the
County with the request for aerial photography.
Mr. Marshall said he would like for the Planning Department to furnish
business cards to the Planning Commissioners so they can identify themselves
when they are on a piece of property. Ms. Humphris said she knows there have
been problems in the past with Commissioners going on property and being asked
to leave. She thinks the Board should be talking about the legality of that.
Mr. Bowerman said the Board has discussed having different signs to give
notice of zoning hearings, and to have the County responsible for erection of
those signs. He thinks that would be a good contribution to public awareness
of public hearings. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Department has been looking
into that request.
Ms. Humphris said she would like to add funding to upgrade the part-time
planner to a full-time senior planner to the list of Unfunded Priorities. Ms.
Thomas agreed, but said she did not favor funding bus service to Wal-Mart.
Mr. Marshall did not favor that request.
Zoning: Requested, $453,136; recommended, $394,596. Amelia G.
McCulley, Zoning Administrator, present.
The Zoning Department works independently, but in conjunction with the
Planning and Engineering Departments, to enforce the Albemarle County Zoning
Ordinance. The department provides interpretations of the Zoning Ordinance and
information regarding applications for special use permits, home occupation
permits and sign permits. They review building permit applications and
March 13, 1995 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 23)
0001.65
provide information about the County's development review process. The
Architectural Review Board is also staffed by the Zoning Department.
The Zoning Department consists of a zoning administrator, a deputy
zoning administrator, an administrative secretary, an office assistant, an
engineering inspector (who was transferred from the Engineering Department
during the current year to take the place of a zoning inspector), two zoning
inspectors, a zoning assistant and a senior design planner.
The Zoning Department's total FY 1995-96 budget is $394,596 and repre-
sents a $31,564 (8.7%) increase over the current year's budget, nine percent
in salaries, 11.6 percent in benefits, 1.5 percent in operations and a $400
decrease in capital purchases. The increase in salary and compensation costs
is due largely to the transfer of engineering staff in the current year plus
vacancies filled by senior employees from other departments.
The County Executive recommends funding at the baseline level of
$394,596, which reflects reductions in several line items to meet the recom-
mended baseline budget target of two percent over the FY 1994-95 appropria-
tion.
Major department reauests not funded in the County Executive's recommen-
dation:
Zoning Inspector - Request to fund a full-time zoning inspector who is
needed due to the increasingly complex process of inspecting new
businesses and certain residential structures, the rising number of
public requests for preliminary conferences and the numerous changes in
regulations and topography. The requested cost of $48,569 includes
approximately $2600 in additional operating costs, $2100 for office
furniture and equipment and $17,529 for a truck.
Architectural Review and Code Compliance - This request is for funding
aerial surveillance ($300) for the purpose of reducing code violations
and for $200 in additional costs in excess of the baseline for certified
engineers' reports.
Ms. McCulley said the most critical request for the department is for a
fourth zoning inspector. This position affects all aspects of the depart-
ment's function. They wish to do more cross training so inspectors now assist
in the office answering general inquiries from the public, etc. They hope to
improve client service by decreasing response time to the general public and
to those citizens making regular submittals. The more one has to do, the more
likely it is that one will make an inadvertent error. Zoning can assist the
public by catching errors before someone makes an investment, or builds a
building that needs to be moved.
Ms. McCulley said there have been a couple of things that have changed
since they got additional staff in July, 1990. The Entrance Corridor Overlay
District was adopted in October, 1990. Not too long ago, its purview was
increased to include new building permits. It is not just site plans for
entirely new developments and signs, but also building permits for changing
facades of buildings. That requires a more intensive review than regular site
plans. There are 18 entrance corridors, and that is where most development is
occurring. In August, 1994 an accessory apartment zoning text amendment was
adopted. That zoning inspection is more involved because they actually go
into a house and take measurements. It is an internal and external review.
It requires more contract with the property owner. As fringes of the urban
area are developed, they are getting into the more difficult land areas.
There are more approval conditions, and more approvals in general. The Sign
Ordinance has been amended, and has added more staff time in negotiating with
the owners for a better result. This additional position is a critical need
for the department.
Ms. McCulley said funds were requested for aerial photograph in the way
of surveillance. They will try to have it done free in conjunction with the
State Police or the County Police. The most recent case involved a property
with a very large trash dump. Zoning was able to get the information needed
in order to obtain a search warrant to go onto the property. She said it was
an amazing clean-up. They are finding more situations where this type of
thing is needed.
March 13, 1995 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 24)
00016(;
Ms. McCulley said as to the need for a certified engineer's report, soon
Zoning will need to turn to others to provide that engineering report to prove
that something does or does not meet County-imposed conditions. This is where
something is already build, and a complaint is lodged. The County has to
prove that something is a violation. During the review process, the applicant
does have to provide a report to zoning to show they can comply with regula-
tions. After that, Zoning has to make sure they stay in compliance.
Ms. Humphris said given the growth the County is experiencing and the
conditions described of which most Board members are aware, she thinks the
full-time zoning inspector is a critical need.
Mr. Marshall asked the educational requirements for the job. Ms.
McCulley said it calls for some college courses or equivalent experience. Mr.
Marshall asked if there is specific schooling furnished for a zoning inspec-
tor. Ms. McCulley said that recently a certification program has been
developed, but enough people have not yet passed to recognize the program in
the State. They would like to make that a prerequisite. She said they are
also looking for someone with code enforcement experience.
Mr. Bowerman said he would be willing to put this on the Unfunded
Priority List if the request for the $500 for Architectural Review and Code
Compliance funds is dropped. Ms. McCulley agreed.
Extension Service: Requested, $116,108; recommended, $111,208.
Charley W. Goodman, Unit Chairman, was present.
The Virginia Cooperative Extension Service provides citizens of
Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville with the educational re-
sources and research of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute (VPI-SU). Local
staff provides educational programs on nutritional food preparation practices,
production and marketing techniques for commercial horticulturists and
gardening information for homeowners. The Extension Service also administers
and supervises the County's 4H program which serves over 1000 County young-
sters. The County's share of the Cooperative Extension Service reflects the
salary of a full-time secretary, and one-third of the salary and fringe
benefit costs for 2.5 extension agents, plus telephone service and office
supplies.
The Extension Service's FY 1995-96 total budget increases by $3482
(3.2%) over the current year, which reflects a 4.1 percent increase in
salaries, a 3.3 percent increase in benefits and a 12.4 percent increase in
operations.
The County Executive recommends funding at the baseline level of
$111,208 which reflects a recommended reduction in operational expenses for
the Extension Service for the purpose of meeting the recommended budget target
of two percent over the current year's baseline. The recommended reductions
in operating expenses include a $1700 decrease in rental payments to reflect
an annual CPI (Consumer Price Index) of 2.6 percent for 1994 and $2900 in
telecommunications expenses. There are no expanded requests.
Mr. Goodman said the difference between the requested amount and the
recommended amount is mainly for telephone services. Since the Extension
Service moved to new office space in the Albemarle County Service Authority
Building. they have to operate their own telephone system, and it is much
different in cost than when they were in the County Office Building. Another
increased cost is rent. They have a five-year lease with the ACSA and the
rent increases each year in accordance with the CPI on May 1. They do not
know exactly what the rent will be for next year.
Ms. Thomas asked if the rental payment in the budget assumes a certain
rate increase. Mr. Tucker said staff will have to talk to the ACSA about
that. There is no need for worry at this time. The County would have to make
up any difference some how.
Mr. Goodman said as to the telephone system, they opened the office with
a loaded system and have cut down to three lines. They still need those three
lines coming in, and four lines go out, including the computers which are
linked to universities across the nation.
March 13, 1995 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 25)
0001:67
Mr. Perkins said he thinks the telephones would be the same as the rent.
If there are not enough funds, the County will have to pick it up and pay it.
Mr. Tucker said that can be added to the Unfunded Priority List.
There were no further questions from Board members.
Soil and Water Conservation: Requested, $30,334; recommended, $24,779.
Steve K. Meeks was present.
The County provides the Soil and Water Conservation District with
funding for a part-time clerical position (60%) plus funding for copy supplies
and expenses. In FY 1991-92, the Soil and Water Conservation District began
the administration of the Water Resources Protection Act Ordinance.
The Soil and Water Conservation total budget request is $30,334,
representing a 6.5 percent increase over FY 1994-95. Of the total request,
$13,920 represents the requested budget of the Water Resources Protection Act
(WRPA) implementation program. An additional $5720 is requested in order to
expand the WRPA technical position from 10 hours per week to 20 hours per
week, plus an increase in the hourly wage for this position from $10.00 per
hour to $10.50 per hour.
The County Executive recommends funding in the amount of $24,779, which
includes full funding of the Soil and Water Conservation Division budget of
$16,414, and $8365 for the WRPA, which reflects a recommended two percent
increase over the FY 1994-95 baseline budget of $8200. The expended technical
position is not recommended for funding.
Mr. Meeks said the only difference between the budget for the Soil and
water District and what staff recommended is an increase of 10 hours for the
WRPA Ordinance position. The request was not to expand that person to 20
hours per week in that work area, but to expand that position so that person
can work in other technical areas beyond the Ordinance. The Agricultural
Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS) which is now know as NRCS, has
lost two staff positions in the district, particularly in the Albemarle office
area. The district is no longer to rely on their assistance and technical
advise and service to landowners. The district has seen an increase in
requests from citizens in the County for assistance in conservation practices,
as well as complaints. The decrease from last year's budget represents a
change in staffing for the secretarial position. A new person was hired at a
lower grade level to make up the difference.
Ms. Thomas asked if the State has reduced its funding. Mr. Meeks said
the State has reduced its funding to the district. NRCS is a Federal program
where the district offices are housed so there is a lot of interaction between
the two agencies. Historically, both agencies have shared staffing, secre-
tarial support, equipment, etc. There has been a reduction on the Federal
side. The NRCS now is devoted mainly to the administration of the Federal
Farm Bill. They are not able to respond to landowner requests. They also
feel that if the job can be changed from a 10-hour per week position to a 20-
hour per week position, they might possibly be able to retain the employee
longer.
Mr. Marshall asked about the release of Lady Bugs. Mr. Meeks said that
two or three years ago some state agencies released some Japanese Lady Bugs
for several projects not related to each other. For many years, it was
thought the program was a failure because no one saw the lady bugs. Last year
they appeared statewide, so the district is getting a lot of telephone calls.
They are having one benefit in this area that was not expected. They feed on
insects which attach hemlock trees.
There were no further questions from Board members.
Gypsy Moth: Requested, $24,121; recommended, $24,121. Steven K. Meeks
was present.
The Gypsy Moth program was initiated in 1988 to address the encroaching
infestation of gypsy moths into Albemarle County. A full-time coordinator,
one full-time technical aide, 12 part-time surveyors and the operational costs
of pest management have been funded by Federal grant funds, State spraying
March 13, 1995 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 26)
funds, local tax funds and fees from landowners. The current fee level is
$10/acre of land sprayed.
The County Executive recommends funding at the baseline level of
$24,121.
Mr. Meeks said this program operates on a year-to-year basis not knowing
what the Federal and State governments are going to approve in the way of
funding. No significant changes are anticipated in this year's operation,
although the problem does appear to be spreading around the County. In past
years, the problem was contained primarily to the White Hall District, but
this year the moths have come from Nelson County into the Scottsville Dis-
trict. The problem is still there. There are heavy infestations in the
Covesville/Heards Mountain area. The program is still a landowner/cost share
program where any landowner wishing to participate in the spraying program is
helping to fund that program.
There were no questions from Board members.
Rental Assistance Program: Requested, $243,093; recommended, $238,093.
Roxanne W. White, Executive Assistant, present.
The Rental Assistance Program is responsible for administering three
housing programs in the County. The Section 8 Housing Certificate Program
provides Federal rental assistance for up to 202 eligible families who pay no
more than 30 percent of their adjusted income for rent and utilities. The
Moderate Rehabilitation Program currently has 175 Moderate Rehabilitation
units, mainly in Scottsville and Whitewood Village, but there are several
located on Pen Park Road and in the Four Seasons Complex. The housing voucher
program allows up to 34 families to choose units above the fair market rent
established for the other programs if they can afford the difference. A
Family Self-Sufficiency (FSS) Program, mandated by HUD, was implemented in
Albemarle County in the current year to give Section 8 voucher and certificate
families the opportunity to become independent of subsidized programs. The
Rental Assistance Program is overseen by the director and deputy director of
the Social Services Department. That office is staffed by an office assis-
tant, an accounting technician, a housing counselor (who works in the FSS
Program), two part-time eligibility workers, a housing assistant and a housing
inspector.
The Rental Assistance Program budget increases by $7037 (3%) to a total
of $238,093. This total reflects a 11.7 percent increase in salaries, a 14.7
percent increase in benefits and a 15.5 percent increase in operations. The
increases in salary and benefits reflect the addition of a part-time housing
counselor position to begin a comprehensive housing counseling program as part
of an expanded Housing Office. Funds for the position were transferred from
the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program (AHIP) where the County had funded a
part-time counselor in the current year, a position that ended in December.
There are no significant increases or decreases in the line item budget. The
County Executive recommends funding at the baseline level of $238,093.
Major department request not included in the County Executive's recom-
mendation is: FSS Client Costs. Additional funds were requested to assist
Family Self-Sufficiency clients with transportation and other miscellaneous
costs associated with attending school, training or seeking a job at a cost of
$5O00.
Ms. White said the rental assistance program and the housing coordina-
tor's budget will be in one cost center identified as the Housing Office as of
July 1, 1995.
Mr. Martin asked who makes the decision about how to use the FSS funds.
Obviously, if it is only $5000, it won't be used for too many people. Ms.
White said currently, there is a FSS worker employed and paid out of the
General Assistance program in Social Services. That person will decide how
the funds will be allocated.
Mr. Martin asked how many people that person serves in the course of a
year. Ms. Kathy Ralston said that person began work in August, and as of
January they had recruited about 10 people. They are required to have 60
people by April of 1996.
March 13, 1995 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 27)
000169
Mr. Martin said some people turn molehills into mountains, and he does
not think they are helped by allowing them to do that. He wonders if the
$5000 really goes to help the person turn the mountain into a molehill.
Earlier, it was mentioned that money might go for a uniform. For some of his
clients, if there is need for a uniform before they can begin work, they
usually come up with the uniform somehow. Ms. Ralston said the request was
based on previous experience in the Employment Services Program. There is
$21,000 in that program that serves between 150 and 200 people a year with
transportation, books, tuition, car repairs, insurance. If these people have
vehicles at all, they are usually not in good shape. In order to get them on
the road, there might be a need for $200 in repairs and insurance. This
program might pay for three months of insurance, but the client has to pay for
the repair costs. The people who live further out in the County get the most
money.
Mr. Perkins asked if the request should be placed on the list of
unfunded priorities. Mr. Martin said "yes."
There were no further questions from Board members.
Housing Coordinator: Requested, $76,745; recommended, $43,745.
Roxanne W. White, Executive Assistant, present.
The Housing Coordinator's office was established in November, 1993 based
on a recommendation of the Housing Advisory Committee and subsequent funding
by the Board of Supervisors in FY 1993-94. The responsibilities of this
office are to provide technical assistance, coordination and general housing
information to other county departments, nonprofit housing providers, private
organizations and the general public, to develop implementation programs and
strategies for identified housing initiatives and to act as the implementing
agency or to identify a suitable agency. Additionally, the housing coordina-
tor ensures that housing programs and activities undertaken in the County are
non-duplicated, and also assesses and identifies major community housing
issues for the purpose of developing policies, initiatives and programs to
address these needs. The office is to provide staff to the Housing Committee
and other ad hoc committees, as appropriate, and to work with them to develop
an implementation plan for county-wide housing priorities.
The FY 1995-96 budget for the Housing Coordinator decreases by $1526
(3.4%) over the current year's appropriation. The decrease reflects a two
percent increase in salary costs, a 25.4 percent decrease in benefits and a
5.8 percent decrease in operating expenses. There are no significant in-
creases or decreases in the line item budget.
The County Executive recommends full funding for the Housing Coordina-
tor. However, a major department request not funded is: Funding was re-
quested for a full-time housing education specialist in the Housing Coordina-
tor's Office. Full funding for this position was not recommended since a
part-time housing counselor position is being funded in the Housing Office
using funds previously allocated to AHIP for the same type of program.
There were no questions from Board members.
COUNTY JUDICIAL DEPARTMENTS.
Circuit Court: Requested, $72,031; recommended, $72,031. Rick Huff
made the presentation.
The Circuit Court of the County is part of the Sixteenth Judicial
Circuit of Virginia and is the Court of Record for the County. This court has
general jurisdiction of all types of cases: civil, equity and criminal. In
addition, the Circuit Court is the court to which appeals from the General
District Court and the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court are taken. The
office has one legal services assistant and a part-time law clerk, plus
compensation for witnesses, jurors and jury commissioners. The staff is
involved in providing support services for the judge in the scheduling and
hearing of cases. The County is responsible for funding all support staff and
the operational expenses of the court.
The FY 1995-96 budget increases by $4935 (7.4%) reflecting an 11.7
percent increase in salaries, a 9.8 percent increase in benefits and a 1.9
March 13, 1995 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 28)
000170
percent increase in operating costs. The increased salary and benefit costs
reflect a reclassification of the legal services assistant in the current
year. There are no significant increases or decreases in operational ac-
counts. Decreased local revenues reflect the fact that the Circuit Court
Judge no longer spends one day a week in Greene County which reimbursed 20
percent of that salary and benefits.
The County Executive recommends funding at the baseline level of
$72,031. There are no expanded requests.
There were no questions from Board members.
General District Court: Requested, $13,650; recommended, $12,150. Rick
Huff made the presentation.
The General District Court serves the County and is comprised of three
divisions: Criminal Division, Civil Division and Traffic Division. In
addition, the court also decides zoning, hunting and fishing license matters.
The office consists of a clerk and five deputy clerks whose salaries are paid
by the State. The County pays for the operational expenses of the court.
The total budget for the General District Court is $12,150, representing
a two percent increase in operational expenses and $1500 for a personal
computer to assist in the collection of unpaid fines and costs and to meet
increased caseloads.
The County Executive recommends funding at the baseline level of $12,150
to include a personal computer.
There were no questions from Board members.
Magistrate: Requested, $8,535; recommended, $8,535. Roxanne White made
the presentation.
The Magistrate is appointed and supervised by the Judge of the Sixteenth
Judicial Circuit Court and serves as the initial contact with the criminal
justice system. The operational costs of the Magistrate's office are shared
50/50 with the City of Charlottesville. Salaries are paid by the State. The
Magistrate's budget decreases by $2565 (23.1%) due to significant capital
purchases in FY 1994-95. The County Executive recommends funding at the
baseline level of $8535.
There were no questions from Board members.
Juvenile & Domestic Relations Court: Requested, $43,294; recommended,
$37,044. Rick Huff made the presentation.
The Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court has jurisdiction over cases
involving violations of the law committed by or against persons under the age
of eighteen, family disputes or other domestic-related problems. The Court is
comprised of two components: the Court itself hears juvenile cases, child
abuse and child neglect cases; the Court Service Unit provides after-care and
probation, intake services to the community and domestic relations counseling.
The operational costs, including the total salary for two deputies and the
fringe benefits for three County deputies serving as bailiffs for the Court,
are shared on a 50/50 basis with the City.
The Juvenile Court's baseline budget decreases by $991 (2.6%). The
cost- sharing formula divides the costs of operation between the County and
the City. The County pays the deputies directly in the Sheriff's budget and
the City reimburses the County by increasing its share of the Juvenile Court
expenses. The County Executive recommends funding at the baseline level of
$37,044. No expanded proqram requests are funded in the County Executive's
recommendation.
Major Department Requests Not Funded in the County Executive's Recommen-
dation are:
Voice Mail System - To fund the County's share of purchasing and
installing an AT&T Voice Mail system. The County Executive recommends
March 13, 1995 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 29)
000171
that the Juvenile Court investigate the possibility of purchasing voice
mail services from CENTEL or hooking to the County[s voice mail system
as a remote user, which would lower the cost of this request $5500
Personal Computer - To share with the City the cost of a personal
computer (50%) for preparing dockets and the like $750
Mr. Huff said staff probably should have included the $750 for the
computer. That would take the department back close to level funding. He
thinks that was an omission on staff's part. City staff has indicated that
they will probably do this also.
There were no questions from Board members.
Clerk of Circuit Court: Requested, $444,709; recommended, $444,709.
Rick Huff made the presentation.
The Clerk of the Circuit Court is responsible for the maintenance of all
court records, including the recordation of deeds, deeds of trusts, mechanic's
liens, partnerships and fiduciary accounts, the docketing of judgments,
financing and termination statements under the Uniform Commercial Code. The
Clerk also processes motions for judgments involving vehicle accidents, suits
for divorce, condemnations, injunctions, partition of land, appeals from
General District Court, adoption proceedings and name changes. Other duties
include the probation of wills, appointments of estate executors and adminis-
trators and the issuance of marriage licenses.
The Clerk, a constitutional officer elected by the citizens of Albemarle
County, and the Clerk's staff are on the County payroll system, but all
salaries and a portion of the total benefits are reimbursed to the County by
the State Compensation Board. The State also shares in the expenses of
indexing, audit services, postal services and public liability insurance. The
staff of the Clerk's office includes a chief deputy, five deputy clerks and
two office assistants.
The Clerk's budget increases by $6143 (1.4%). This includes a 1.8
percent increase in salaries, a 1.3 percent decrease in benefits, a 0.6
percent decline in operating costs and a request for $13,860 in replacement
capital costs representing the annual lease purchase payment due on microfilm
reader printers purchased in FY 1992-93 and the purchase of replacement
typewriters. The County agreed to purchase a copier ($6140) for the Clerk's
office from the County's copier fund, reimbursable by the Clerk's office
through a $0.03 charge for copies which is budgeted in a line item entitled
"copy supplies." The increase in compensation and benefit costs reflects the
impact of a 2.25 percent increase in salaries which was authorized by the
State to begin December 1, 1995. This Department is a net producer of
revenues and is expected to provide $296,091 in revenues in excess of costs.
The County Executive recommends funding at the baseline level of
$444,709.
Ms. Thomas asked about the purchase of replacement typewriters. Ms.
Humphris said she recently took a form into that office and they had to use a
typewriter to put the information on the form. There was no way it could be
done on a computer. Mr. Tucker said that is true. It is almost impossible to
have everything needed on a computer. Mr. Martin said the Juvenile Court just
got its computers six months ago. Mr. Marshall said in his business he has to
have a hard copy of information when he is inspected. He still uses a
typewriter.
There were no further questions from Board members.
Sheriff: Requested, $760,452; recommended, $721,389. Rick Huff made
the presentation.
The Sheriff is a constitutional officer elected by the voters of the
County and is responsible for processing and serving all civil and criminal
papers, and providing courtroom security to the General District Court,
Circuit Court and the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court. The office is
also responsible for transporting prisoners and mental patients by court
order.
March 13, 1995 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 30)
The Sheriff's office consists of the Sheriff, 13 full-time deputies (two
are new deputies, funded by the Compensation Board, who were added in the
current year, and one is the law enforcement deputy working in Scottsville who
was added to the County's payroll in 1995, two part-time deputies, one
secretary and a part-time office assistant). The Compensation Board funds the
salaries, partial benefits and some of the operational costs of the Sheriff,
plus 10 full-time deputies and the secretary. (The County funds the em-
ployee's share of the Virginia Retirement System (VRS), VRS life insurance,
and all medical and dental benefits.) The County funds the salaries, benefits
and operating costs of a part-time deputy and the administrative assistant.
Two full-time deputies working for the town of Scottsville also are on the
County's payroll, but Scottsville reimburses the salary and benefits for one
of these deputies and the benefits of the other. The City and the County
jointly fund the salary and fringe benefit costs for the remaining two
locally-funded deputies serving as bailiffs in the Juvenile and Domestic
Relations Court.
The Sheriff's budget for FY 1995-96 is $721,389 (26.5%) reflecting a 24
percent increase in salaries, a 17 percent increase in benefits, a 2.9 percent
increase in operational expenses and a 26.2 percent increase in capital costs.
The increase in compensation and benefits is due largely to the addition of
three deputies to the Sheriff's budget in the current year, the salaries and
benefits of one of which are reimbursed by Scottsville~ In addition, a 2.25
percent salary increase for constitutional officers was funded effective
December 1, 1995. The major increase in capital equipment costs is due to
replacement of three vehicles in FY 1995-96.
The County Executive recommends funding for the Sheriff's Office in the
amount of $721,389 which reflects recommended reductions in operational costs
to meet the target increase of two percent over the current year's baseline
budget. Additional funds are recommended for several expanded program
requests, including: $18,475 to purchase a prisoner transport van that also
will serve as a vehicle for the deputy hired in the current year who is still
without a vehicle; $6915 in additional operating expenses for the new officers
hired in the current year (not included in the baseline budget) and $5019 to
upgrade the locally-funded, part-time office assistant to a full-time posi-
tion. The office assistant upgrade is needed so that this person can assume
greater responsibility for answering the two radio systems and phone, doing
civil process updates, receiving the mail and assisting the public. This will
allow the full-time secretary to spend more time on administrative duties such
as jurors, bookkeeping and the budget.
A major department request not funded in the County Executive's recom-
mendation is upgrading a locally-funded, part-time deputy to full-time to meet
the increasing workload of the Sheriff's deputies as crime and arrests
increase, at a cost of $25,388 which includes the cost of a full-sized
vehicle.
Mr. Marshall asked if the $25,388 could be added to the Unfunded
Priority List so that Sheriff Hawkins might have a chance to come to a meeting
and explain the request in detail. There was a consensus to this effect.
There were no further questions from Board members.
Fire/Rescue Division: Requested, $342,187; recommended, $278,962. Rick
Huff made the presentation.
Fire/Rescue Administration is a relatively new division that became
operational in January, 1993 and it is comprised of a combination of four
existing programs: fire/rescue management, training, fire prevention and
fire/rescue volunteer services. The staff of this department coordinates
volunteer fire/rescue services in the community, provides fire prevention
inspection and education and assists volunteer companies and squads in their
recruitment and retention of volunteers through training and support.
Technical expertise and coordination of resources on hazardous materials
incidents and large fires are now provided through this office to the volun-
teers in the field.
The FY 1995-96 budget of the Fire/Rescue Division increases by $33,097
(13.5%). Compensation costs rose by 3.1 percent, benefits decreased by 7.3
percent, operations increase by 12.6 percent and capital outlay increases by
000173
March 13, 1995 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 31)
$15,310 to cover the purchase of an emergency shelter generator ($15,000) and
the cost of one replacement vehicle for the fire prevention division
($15,310) .
Major department requests not funded in the County Executive's recommen-
dation are:
Hazardous materials cleanup account $5,000
Training officer, $34,244. Funding was requested for a part-time
training officer to develop a comprehensive training program for
over 400 emergency personnel from entry to command level. This
expansion is of particular significance given the increase in the
mandated State and local requirements for minimum training levels
for emergency personnel. Currently the department is not able to
meet this goal and provides training in a class setting twice
yearly at a central location. This would expand this program to
provide an on-going structured curriculum to all emergency person-
nel at various locations throughout the year. The division's
original budget requested funding for a full-time Training Officer
at $34,244. Based on a recommendation that a part-time position
was sufficient to meet the training program objectives, the County
Executive would recommend funding only a part-time position at
$17,122, including $3950 in operating costs, if funds are avail-
able.
The County Executive recommends funding in the amount of $278,962, which
includes an additional $10,000 to fund a portion of the cost of a part-time to
full-time office assistant in the administrative division. (The Department's
original request was for $19,110 for a full-time office assistant.)
Mr. Huff said there was an emergency shelter generator placed in the
East Rivanna Volunteer Fire Station this past January using a reappropriation
of funds. This was done in order to have backup power for use of a shelter in
case of emergency in the eastern part of the County. It is a target to do one
of those a year. During the recent snowstorm, it was found that none of the
heating systems in the schools could be operated because none of the schools
have backup generators. He said the County Executive's recommendation also
includes a part-time position in the Fire/Rescue Division as an assistant to
the present secretary.
Mr. Huff said he needs to make one correction under Fire/Rescue Volun-
teer Services having to do with the Thomas Jefferson Medical Services. They
requested $15,320, but that was based on an erroneous assumption that some of
the other items in the budget belonged to them. The recommendation for the
TJEMS at two percent should be $14,993.
Mr. Huff said a request for a part-time training officer for the
volunteers was also not recommended for funding by the County Executive. When
the volunteers made a presentation last October, they said they would put
together a long-range plan showing their needs. They were not able to
complete that plan in time for this budget process. The training position is
still subject to debate.
Mr. Marshall said the TJEMS people are not in favor of this training
position. Mr. Huff said this position was not to provide EMS training because
the TJEMS provides training for the rescue people and the County funds that
already, with the University providing life-support training for these people.
This position was only for the fire side which does not have that same funding
mechanism.
Ms. Thomas said the wording of the request says ~given the increase in
the mandated State and local requirements for minimum training levels for
emergency personnel." She asked if it is not mandated can the County do
without this position? Mr. Huff said that is being debated right now. The
volunteers sent in a supplemental request just last week that said in lieu of
a training position to coordinate their training, to give them $20,000 and
they would undertake the training. The issue for staff has not been making
sure the training is there, but making sure the instructor shows up, and shows
up with all his materials. It is the coordination piece staff has been
struggling with. That function used to be done by the City of Charlottesville
and the volunteers were not happy with how that took place. Staff has been
trying to do it with an hourly person at night, someone to open the building
March 13, 1995 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 32)
000174
and make sure the class is taking place. The volunteers are not happy with
that arrangement. Staff is going to be sure they meet their minimum state
requirements. There is nobody checking up on training requirements for
volunteer firemen. Some one does this for rescue, but not for firemen, and
that is the real issue staff is trying to deal with.
There were no further questions from the Board.
Jefferson Country Fire & Rescue Association (JCFRA) : Requested,
$651,000; recommended, $541,315. Rick Huff made the presentation.
The Jefferson Country Fire and Rescue Association represents seven
volunteer fire departments and three rescue squads who provide services to
Albemarle County residents. The volunteer fire departments are: North
Garden, Scottsville, Crozet, Earlysville, East Rivanna, Stony Point and
Seminole Trail; the three rescue squads are: Charlottesville-Albemarle
(CARS), Western Albemarle (WARS) and Scottsville (SRS).
The County's allocation to the volunteer fire departments is supple-
mented by State revenues from the Fire Services Program, while the contribu-
tion to the rescue squads is supplemented by Two-for-Life moneys that the
County receives from the $2.00 surcharge placed on automobile registrations by
the State. The State revenues received by the County are paid directly to the
volunteer fire companies and rescue squads and are not used to reduce the
County's commitment to these companies.
JCFRA requests funding in the amount of $651,000 for FY 1995-96,
reflecting a 53 percent increase over the current year. This included a
request for $11,330 in additional funding for each of the seven volunteer fire
companies and two rescue squads. An additional $36,880 was requested for CARS
which reflects the need for Albemarle County to provide more equitable levels
of funding to CARS in relation to the other rescue squads. CARS provides the
majority of service calls in the County and should receive equitable funding.
This increase is the third and final increase in a three-year commitment to
bring funding for CARS equal to the funding of the other two squads in the
County.
Major request not funded in the County Executive's recommendation is:
Additional funds for volunteer fire departments and rescue squads. This
request would fund the $10,357 difference between the $60,000 contribu-
tion originally requested for each of the volunteer fire and rescue
companies and the $49,643 contribution (representing a two percent
increase over the FY 1994-95 appropriated amounts) recommended by the
County Executive for each company, $103,570.
The County Executive recommends baseline funding of two percent for
JCFRA volunteer fire companies and rescue squads for a total recommended
budget of $496,430 not including State dollars from the Fire Services Program
and the EMS Fund that are distributed to the companies and squads. The
recommended baseline budget supports increased funding for CARS to bring that
Squad's contribution up to the level of squads from other localities.
Additionally, the County Executive recommends funding $100,000 of the agency's
$130,000 expanded request for vehicle and building insurance and an additional
$4000 for JCFRA recruitment and retention initiatives.
Mr. Huff said the County Executive recommended funding $100,000 for a
comprehensive vehicle and building liability insurance policy that would be
bid by, and held by, the County on the behalf of JCFRA. This would reduce the
money the individual departments are spending for insurance. He hopes that by
the County bidding out the insurance all in one policy, a better price might
be obtained. If that does not turn out to be true, the County may have to pay
90 percent of the cost, with the departments paying the other 10 percent.
This would relieve some of the fund-raising burden from the volunteers and
provide them more time for tuaining, answering calls, and for spending with
their families.
Mr. Huff said $4000 was requested for a recruitment and a retention
program. Part of that money will be spent for supplies, and the other would
be for an appreciation function for the volunteers.
March 13, 1995 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 33)
000:t.75
Mr. Huff said this budget brings the CARS up to parity with the other
two rescue squads in the county. This was a three-year commitment made to
increase their allocation to recognize the number of calls they run each year.
There were no questions from Board members.
Joint Security Complex: Requested, $205,448; recommended, $205,448.
Roxanne White made the presentation.
The Albemarle-Charlottesville Joint Security Complex (Jail) provides
jail services to Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville on a
contractual basis. On a space available basis, the Complex houses prisoners
from Greene, Madison and Fluvanna counties, as well as Federal prisoners. The
main function of the jail is to provide pretrial and short-term detention as
ordered by the courts of the localities served. This requires around-the-
clock supervision, food service and medical services, as well as building
upkeep and utility service.
Most of the Jail's operating costs are reimbursed either by the State
Department of Corrections or the State Compensation Board. The costs that are
not reimbursed are divided between the City and County using a ratio deter-
mined by each jurisdiction's actual use of the jail or number of prisoner days
in the prior fiscal year. The FY 1995-96 budget request is based on 28,851
prisoner days for the County (37%) and 49,308 prisoner days for the City
(63%).
The overall budget of the Jail of $3,293,618 reflects an increase of
$12,363 (0.38%) over FY 1994-95. The County's local share is $205,448,
representing a 26 percent increase over the County's FY 1994-95 contribution
and based on a local share ratio of 37 percent.
Ms. White said she needs to make an amendment to the County Executive's
recommendation. She said the contract calls for the local share to be based
on the prior fiscal year and that is a 37 percent share. That reduces the
County's recommended contribution to $186,095, a savings of $19,300.
There were no questions from Board members.
Mr. Tucker said that concludes all of the items which were scheduled on
the agenda. He asked if the Board wanted to deal with the question of funding
of constitutional officers' salaries. If not, staff needs some direction as
to whether to move these people onto the County's pay scale, or consider some
type of stipend.
Mr. Huff said stipends can be handled in several ways. Should it be
considered as a flat dollar amount or a percentage? The Board will want to
know how much this idea will cost. Mr. Martin said to run both ideas.
Personally, he would not mind figuring out some way to do it on merit, and not
just on a flat fee for every constitutional officer, so the stipend goes with
the person and not with the position. Mr. Tucker said staff had thought about
that idea, but the constitutional officer would have to do the evaluation.
Ms. Humphris asked if this is just for the elected and appointed
officials and not for their employees. Mr. Tucker said it is the people who
work for them, and not the elected official.
Ms. Humphris said if this is for those people who are paid by the State
compensation system, does it include the Joint Security Complex. Mr. Tucker
said they have not been included. The constitutional officers have requested
this year after year, and the Sheriff has asked that it be looked at again.
Ms. Humphris said if it is to be looked at, in order to be fair, everybody in
that category should be included. Mr. Tucker said there is no way the county
could afford to put all of these people on the scale.
Mr. Martin said putting them on the scale is not what he had thought
about. It probably should be a stipend, and the amount of that stipend
decided each year with no commitment to another year.
Ms. Humphris said she does not denote any enthusiasm among Board members
for this idea. Mr. Martin said he is definitely interested in doing some-
March 13, 1995 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 34)
000176
thing. Mr. Tucker said the stipend would stay the same, a dollar amount, or a
certain percentage, so it would not necessarily be increased every year. Mr.
Martin said he does not want to go into detail now, but he is interested in at
least discussing different possibilities. Mr. Tucker said the staff can
probably rule out putting everyone on the scale, which would be much more
expensive.
Mr. Tucker said at the work session on Wednesday the 15th, the first
item on the agenda is the School Division. He needs to alert the Board that
the School Board will be discussing the mandatory health screening at its
meeting tonight, requested by a School Board member. If the School Board
supports eliminating the mandatory requirement for that screening, since this
was a joint decision back in October, 1994, that will come to this Board on
Wednesday. Mr. Martin said he believes that question is going to take a lot
of time, and he does not think the Board will be able to do it on Wednesday.
Agenda Item No. 3. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
Board.
Mr. Martin said he had talked with Mr. Wendell Wood last Friday. Mr.
Wood is building at Briarwood and is finishing two phases. He wants to start
on the third phase before he completes the first two. Part of the conditions
of approval stated that he could not start on the third phase without complet-
ing the first two phases. From what he said, it appears it would make sense
to allow Mr. Wood to start work on the third phase. Mr. Martin said he does
not have all the information to make that decision. The only way for Mr. Wood
to have the conditions changed is to go to the Planning Commission and the
Board for an amendment. That would put his construction way into the summer
months. Mr. Wood asked Mr. Martin to see if the request could be put on the
agenda for April.
Mr. Bowerman asked if staff can be provided with enough information so
the Board knows the implications. Mr. Martin said ~'yes." Mr. Tucker said
this is an amendment to a condition in the zoning Mr. Wood has, so it has to
go through the Commission and then to the Board. Mr. Wood has missed some
filing deadline, and the hearing now would put it into May or later. Since,
it is an amendment, staff would not have to do a complete new staff report.
He said Ms. McCulley is present and might be able to add to the discussion.
Mr. Martin said he did not want to get into a long discussion today.
What he is asking is that the Board get the information so it can make a
decision. He has only heard one side of the story. He knows there are some
housekeeping issues that need to be taken care of by Mr. Wood before the Board
even discusses the request. Mr. Tucker said the request has to go through a
normal advertising process in order to get the information to the Board. It
is not just a matter of bringing the information to the Board. If the Board
is going to take any action, in order for it to be legally correct, it has to
go through an advertising process and the Planning Commission
Mr. Bowerman said he thought Mr. Martin was asking for the information
so the Board could look at it and decide whether the Board should even
consider changing the sequence.
Ms. Thomas asked if the Board would listen to Ms. McCulley in case this
is something it does not want to consider.
Mr. Bowerman asked what the housekeeping items are that Mr. Martin
referred to. Ms. McCulley said she has a five-page letter. Mr. Wood has
about six more house sites and is trying to sign contracts to have more
deliverables. There are several things related to roads and a condition that
requires two things: 1) he is not to be working in more than two phases at
one time, so he has two different proposals before the County now. One is a
townhouse site plan, and the other is for another section of single-family
lots. Then there are two other sections which have not been finished yet. He
has to finish one of those two to be able to begin on this new section. He
has several roads where the work is not complete so they can get into the
State system. These are some of the same conditions imposed when he was
before the Board in 1991. Those are internal neighborhood roads. He also has
some work on Austin Drive and bonding is needed on Briarwood Drive, and finish
work for the relocation of Route 606 in order for the permit to be approved.
There are some minor erosion control measures which are not completed. The
recreation area is not completed.
000 .??
March 13, 1995 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 35)
Mr. Bowerman asked if these things could be done prior to a public
hearing. Mr. Martin said he told Mr. Wood that those things needed to be
dealt with prior to the Board meeting. Mr. Davis said if those things could
be completed, Mr. Wood would not need anything from the Board because he could
then just go on to another section. Mr. Martin said that is why he said he
had only heard one side of the story. Ms. McCulley said staff is trying to
give Mr. Wood the benefit of the doubt. Instead of saying the roads have to
be absolutely completed to the point of adoption of a resolution, staff has
asked that the roads be completed to the point of all the physical work being
completed so the bond can be released, and all the legal work and the paper
work is submitted and is in the proper office for the 45-day wait to begin.
Staff is also accepting a bond for the redesign of the road rather than
waiting for a redesign of the road first as a compromise.
Mr. Thomas said it does not sound like the Board needs to do anything if
Mr. Wood meets his responsibilities. Ms. McCulley said Mr. Wood does not
believe he will be able to meet these responsibilities within the time line he
needs to begin to sign contracts, and to begin building the houses.
Ms. Thomas said she felt there was beginning to be a consensus that the
Board did not want to meet with Mr. Wood until he had met his obligations.
Mr. Martin said he told Mr. Wood the Board would discuss his request. He told
him that he needed to take care of the issues in the five-page letter before
that meeting. He did not have the authority to tell him that. He only wants
to get the request before the Board in a reasonable time frame so the Board
can then make a decision. He is not trying to convince anyone to make a
change.
Ms. Thomas asked if the Board is putting the staff to a great deal of
trouble to get the Board to a point where it can review a situation in which
someone has not met his obligations, and the Board would be unlikely to allow
him to proceed until he had met his obligations. She does not see why the
Board would use staff time and effort to do that. Mr. Martin said he under-
stands staff is already involved.
Ms. Humphris asked if Ms. McCulley had said these conditions had existed
since 1991 and still have not been cleared up. Ms. McCulley said that is
correct. The conditions on the zoning were placed on the zoning in 1991 and
he has moved forward with development, but some of the details of completing
roads and erosion control measures are not completed. He has gotten no more
roads taken into the State system than were ready t° be in the State system at
that point.
Ms. Humphris said this is more than four years later and now, all of a
sudden, the Board is being asked to expedite a change. Ms. McCulley said
there was a deadline for submittals on February 27. These applications are
accepted every two months, so he just missed that date. Mr. Cilimberg said he
would have to wait and apply on the next date in April under the rezoning
schedule. To get this request before the Board by the middle of April may be
very difficult. Setting a Planning Commission hearing, getting a report
completed, advertising and getting it to the Board in April may be almost
impossible at this date.
Mr. Perkins said it does not seem there is anything the Board can do at
this time.
Mr. Martin said he had a constituent who made a request of him, and he
has made the. request of this Board. Mr. Cilimberg said staff will do every-
thing it can to get the request to the Board, but he is not sure of the date.
Mr. Bowerman said he does not know the circumstances, but if there were
things that could have been done during the last couple of years, and they are
still not done, looking to this Board to not consider that, and continuing to
waive that, does not make a lot of sense.
Mr. Martin said he is not going to advocate. Basically, he made a
request which seemed to be a fairly reasonable request because there would be
no decision made, and it could be a means of getting things done. The only
thing the Board would be doing is scheduling a meeting to look at the possi-
bility. He is not advocating for a decision one way or the other.
Mr. Tucker asked the next date the plan could get to the Commission.
Mr. Cilimberg said if staff had something in hand, they could try for April 18
Supervisors
March 13, 1995 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 36)
0O0::[?8
for the Commission. The next regular schedule for submittals for rezonings
would not have it coming in until April 24, and it would not get to the
Commission until June 6. If the Board wanted to pursue something on the
special use permit schedule, which is very similar, those applications are
accepted every month. March 27 is the next submittal date and the Commission
could hear the request on May 9.
Mr. Bowerman said if consideration is being asked for and there is
enough time to do stuff, a positive decision would be predicated on getting a
lot of the unresolved matters resolved prior to the time of reviewing it, or
otherwise there is not be much likelihood it will be granted. Mr. Martin said
he agreed. That is the first thing he told Mr. Wood. Mr. Bowerman said if it
could be used as a deadline to get something done, that would be good.
Ms. Humphris said Mr. Davis had pointed out that if he is going to
conform there is no reason for him to come, so why doesn't he just conform?
Mr. Martin said he thinks there is more to finishing up the phases than just
conforming. He does not know why Mr. Wood would have asked him to do this if
the only issue was just conforming.
Ms. McCulley said the second half of the agreement that relates to the
chronology of development is something he would like to have amended regard-
less of what happens with the requirement that he be in no more than two
phases of development at one time. He does want to rearrange the order of
development.
Ms. Humphris asked if staff will present the Board with information
about why that agreement was set forth in the first place. Mr. Bowerman said
he will say right now that the reason it was put into place was to avoid just
this type of "circuitousness." Mr. Cilimberg said every time there is a
request to make a change in schedules staff just ends up in some sort of
pressure situation. If the request is submitted on the special use permit
schedule, it will give staff the time it needs to get the historical informa-
tion, advertise, etc.
Mr. Perkins suggested that Mr. Wood be advised to submit his application
on the special use permit schedule.
Mr. Marshall said if anyone Wants to go to Covesville to look at the
site for the ballfield, he will be able to take them early Wednesday morning.
Ms. Thomas said she would like to go. Mr. Davis reminded the members that not
more than two members should go at one time because, by Code, three members
constitute a legal meeting.
Agenda Item No. 4. Adjourn to March 15, 1995, 1:00 p.m.
At 5:24 p.m., with no further business to come before the Board, motion
was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to adjourn this meeting
until March 15, 1995, at 1:00 p.m. for a budget work session.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and
Ms. Humphris.
NAYS: None.
Chairman ,,L/