2009-03-02March 2, 2009 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 1)
An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
March 2, 2009, at 1:00 p.m., in Room 241 of the County Office Building on McIntire Road, Charlottesville,
Virginia. This meeting was adjourned from February 25, 2009.
PRESENT: Mr. Ken C. Boyd, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Ms. Ann Mallek, Mr. Dennis S. Rooker,
Mr. David Slutzky and Ms. Sally H. Thomas.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W . Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W.
Davis, Clerk, Ella W . Jordan and Deputy Clerk, Meagan Hoy.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 1:00 p.m., by the Chairman, Mr. Slutzky.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 2. FY 2009-10 County Budget: Work Session.
General Government W ork Session
Overview:
Mr. Tucker reported that the Board will be reviewing the General Government section of the
proposed budget today. Another work session is set for Thursday, March 5 to review the School Board’s
budget. If the Board does not finish the session today, staff has discussed continuing this review at the
end of the Board’s regular day meeting on W ednesday or finishing today’s review after the meeting on
Thursday. On Monday, March 9, there is a budget session scheduled to cover the Capital Improvements
Program (CIP) and try to deal with approval of a budget and a tax rate for advertising; if needed, March
11 is also available. He said staff will review each section of the General Government budget today and
take questions; he suggested that any items needing further discussion be put on a list for review at the
end of the work sessions.
Mr. Tucker said staff feels there will be little impact from the Resource Management Review
Report until 2010. He noted that the County is still waiting for clarity from the Federal and State
governments regarding the President’s stimulus bill. Staff met with Congressman Periello’s office staff
last week. The County does not seem to have a lot of money readily available to it, but cities that are
CDBG-entitlement localities will get funds based on their formula. He added that the Schools expect to
get some revenue, and by Thursday they should know more about that.
Mr. Rooker said at the PACC meeting this was discussed. Mr. Ridge Schuyler was present and
indicated that County schools will get about $2.0 million over two years. During the recent budget wrap-
up at the General Assembly they indicated that they were able to hold the schools harmless because of
the stimulus bill. He asked if they are taking the stimulus money the County thought it was getting and
putting it back into the system? Mr. Tucker responded that he would be discussing State revenue
impacts next. During the meeting with Congressman Periello’s staff, they had asked if any of the stimulus
money could be used and not provide local funds, but they do not know for sure at this time. He said the
Schools seem wary of doing that as the money will “dry up” in two years. W ould the County be expected
to make up that money in two years? He said the County has to be careful not to fund the Schools as
highly as it would and use that money for other things when by 2012 that money would have to be put
back in.
Ms. Mallek said it is hoped that things will change in the next two years. Mr. Tucker said he
understands that, but it means Local Government would have to make up that difference in the future.
Some of these things are things they are already funding. It will not add to what they are already doing so
the Schools do not feel it will add to the services they are already providing.
Mr. Rooker asked why that money could not be used for the contingency reserve (saying a “rainy
day fund” is a bad term), since any budget needs some kind of reserve to compensate for slight
differences. Mr. Tucker said if the money were needed in the next two years for a contingency, the Board
would have to find that amount to provide to the Schools by 2012. As long as the Board recognized that
the additional funding might need to be picked up by the County in the future.
Mr. Rooker emphasized that he would rather have the money go into a reserve than have it
increase the expense base that would have to be dealt with in two years.
Mr. Slutzky asked if it could be used to stimulate capital projects so it is being used as a local
economic stimulus for a project that was merely accelerated from the CIP because the funds were
available. Mr. Tucker replied that he thinks that could be done, as it is one-time money.
Ms. Thomas said this budget is essentially being “balanced on the back” of the CIP because that
is where most of the money has been taken out, and the Board has discussed turning the contingency
fund into that if it was not needed in the coming year. Having the Federal stimulus money put into capital
is both a way of repairing the damage done by this budget to capital as well as using one-time money the
way one-time money ought to be used, as well as being a stimulus.
Mr. Slutzky noted that that is what he is suggesting.
March 2, 2009 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 2)
Mr. Tucker said what the County will compete for through the CDBG-type approach is primarily
for capital, and all of the lists which were sent to Congressman Periello’s office, Senator Jim W ebb’s
office, and the Governor contain that item.
Mr. Slutzky asked if the money for schools cannot be used for capital projects. Mr. Tucker said
he does not know.
Mr. Boyd said if it is Title I money it could not be used in that way.
Mr. Rooker said it is coming in through Title I and the IDEA Program. He said the Federal
government was suppose to pay about 40 percent of that program and the County pays about 14 percent.
He said when the legislation was passed, they said they would pay 40 percent and the State would pick
up a share, but now the County pays 86 percent and the State pays 14 percent. Mr. Tucker said by the
time the Board meets with the Schools on Thursday, staff will have a better idea about it. Before the end
of the work sessions next week staff hopes to have a better understanding of State budget impacts. Then
revenue trends will be updated in order to find what has happened since December when the last update
was received.
Mr. Tucker also reported that there are a few recommendations in the Resource Management
Review Study (RMR Study) that could yield significant savings in the 2010 budget; a more in-depth
review and proposed action plan will be forthcoming in May. He added that there would be a brief review
and funding-related recommendations as the Board goes through these work sessions. He mentioned
that the RMR Study contains 148 recommendations, broken down by type; 36 are related to evaluating
something, 36 are procedural changes that would be made in the organization, 31 are resource related,
and 16 are on performance. A few actually recommend expansion of programs.
Ms. Thomas said on Page 11 of the RMR Study it talks about how much money the County gets
from the State and how much comes from local taxpayers, and it is a shocking comparison. It shows why
citizens are so unhappy about their tax burden. It puts the Board in a position of saying it is running the
government on a lower tax rate and reiterating all of the good things said about County government. She
said the local taxpayers are paying a heavier amount than what is paid in other localities. Because of
Albemarle’s composite index and its supposed wealth, and the fact that they do not take into considera-
tion either the Revenue-Sharing Agreement or the Land Use Taxation Program, the State thinks
Albemarle has about $40.0 million more than it has. Also, the County’s low tax rate counts against it.
She said the consultants recommended that the citizens be told about this situation more clearly and she
agrees that would be a good thing. Mr. Tucker said while the County does a good job of explaining the
Revenue-Sharing Agreement with the City, it needs to do a better job of explaining why it is faced with
such issues as the composite index and other issues from the State.
Mr. Rooker noted that on average it appears that Albemarle is getting about 38 percent less per
capita than all of the counties compared to Albemarle in the report.
Mr. Boyd asked if it would be worth doing a comparison of the formula for the composite index to
see where that falls short.
Ms. Thomas said she had asked Mr. Steve Allshouse to do that, but it is a complicated process.
Mr. Tucker said there are funding-related recommendations in the RMR Study that will be
discussed, items that may show a savings either this year in the future, things such as implementing an
EMS revenue recovery plan as soon as practicable, consider changes to the Schools funding formula,
accounting for Debt Service in the amount of School Fund Balance retained, and reconsider the frozen
auditor position in the Finance Department to address potential loss of revenue to the County.
Ms. Thomas pointed out that Mr. Tucker had made a good argument as to why unfreezing that
auditor position would not have the effect the consultants thought it would have. Mr. Tucker said the
County saw significant savings with that position when it was first created; any savings now would
probably not be significant.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks a third-party might be found to perform those tasks if it can be done
under State law and privacy concerns. Mr. Tucker said staff is looking at moving some positions around,
so he might be able to assign this task to a staff member, not an auditor position.
Mr. Tucker said the RMR Study also recommended that adequate resources be applied to
successful completion of the Access Albemarle project, and that adjustments be made to the VERIP
Program as well as to health insurance premiums. The consultants compared Albemarle’s health
insurance premiums with several other localities, but Albemarle is normally compared to 30 different
localities, while they only used three or four localities. They also recommended considering additions to
current staffing levels in various departments. This is another recommendation that will be discussed as
the Board goes through these work sessions. He said staff will start this work session with an overview of
revenues.
__________
Revenue Summary
Mr. Richard W iggans, Director of Finance, addressed the Board, presenting an overview of
revenues. He reported that from FY ‘09 to FY ‘10, revenues are decreasing by $600,000 – or 0.3
percent. General Property taxes (includes both real estate and personal property taxes) are up $3.9
March 2, 2009 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 3)
million – 2.8 percent – using the 76.7 cent tax rate on real property which reflects the 2.5 cent increase for
a Contingency Reserve.
Ms. Mallek asked if all the figures Mr. Wiggans is presenting contain the money for the
Contingency Reserve.
Mr. W iggans said that is correct. Other Local Taxes – primarily sales tax and some development-
related taxes – are down $2.3 million. Other Local Revenues are down $1.9 million. State revenues are
down approximately $200,000 or 1.0 percent; staff is still reviewing General Assembly action. Federal
revenues stay flat and Transfers are up slightly, with the General Fund Balance decreasing by $300,000.
The bottom line is that revenues are basically flat.
Ms. Thomas said there are various annoying little things that say the State is only down 1.0
percent, but she went through the budget to check this out. There are little things such as increased
costs for forest fire extinction and less reimbursement for rent of Social Services space.
Mr. Rooker asked if that includes the change in CSA funding. Mr. W iggans said it does.
Mr. Dorrier asked what the 31 percent decrease includes other than sales taxes. Mr. W iggans
said that Other Local Revenues show a 31 percent decrease. That includes a long list of different kinds
of revenues.
Mr. Dorrier asked if that includes the machinery and tools tax. Mr. W iggans said that tax is a part
of the General Property tax. Other Local Revenue includes development revenues, building permits,
interest income, etc., which are declining by about $1.9 million from the current budget to next year’s
budget.
Mr. Tom Foley, Assistant County Executive, clarified the State revenue reduction by stating that
there are revenues in other funds that are not reflected in the 1.0 percent, so in total there is about
$750,000 less than the current year. The 1.0 percent is reflected in the General Fund.
Mr. Boyd asked Mr. W iggans about commercial real estate prices, as retail occupancy rates have
been declining, and that some retailers may be moving out because of the failure of retail stores. Mr.
Wiggans said he will discuss that shortly, but commercial reassessments were up 1.59 percent this year.
Mr. Boyd noted that those numbers were based on FY 2007-08 numbers that would likely
change. Mr. W iggans said there have not been many appeals of residential or commercial tax bills this
year, but the County anticipates a continued decline in value in 2010.
Mr. Boyd suggested getting some of the bigger payers together, such as mall and shopping
center owners, to gather their input on projected occupancy rates.
Mr. Foley said as a point of interest, on Page 70 there is a list of things that contribute to the 1.0
percent reduction in State revenues.
Mr. W iggans reported that each cent on the real estate tax rate equates to $1.56 million in FY ‘10,
and the budget is balanced on a tax rate of 74.2 cents, with an additional 2.5 cents that would provide
$3.9 million for a Contingency Reserve Fund.
Mr. Slutzky asked how much of a budget shortfall has been experienced in the current fiscal year.
Mr. W iggans said the Second Quarter Financial Report shows that shortfall as about $7.0 million. Staff
attempted to be conservative on revenue projections for next year. He presented a breakdown of
revenues by classification for the 2009 reassessment: single-family urban declined by 5.26 percent,
single-family suburban declined by 2.8 percent, with the average of those two being 4.1 percent; multi-
family is up almost 5.0 percent, commercial/industrial is up 1.6 percent; and, agricultural declined by 2.59
percent.
Mr. W iggans reported that three major revenue sources have declined in the FY ‘10 budget –
development and housing-related fees and taxes are down 47.0 percent or $2.1 million; sales tax is down
9.2 percent or $1.3 million; and, personal property taxes are down 8.0+ percent or $1.9 million.
Mr. Slutzky asked how much is anticipated to be lost this year in revenue from the Land Use Tax
Program. Mr. W iggans said it is probably about $17.0 million.
Mr. Boyd asked how much more this is expected to decline next year. Mr. W iggans said this is
the budgeted amount; the actual amount for the current year is also down from the budgeted amount in
each of these categories. The amount for next year is also down based on assessments.
Mr. Slutzky asked if that is based on the 2009 reassessments.
Mr. Boyd asked how much more it is expected to decrease in next year’s budget. Mr. Foley said
there are projections on the 2010 reassessment that are one-half of the fiscal year. He said staff will get
that figure for another work session.
Mr. Boyd said projected revenues in the current fiscal year are down from the last fiscal year. Is
the 4.0 percent decrease in development housing 37.0 percent over what was expected for the current
year or what was budgeted? Mr. W iggans said it is the budgeted figure.
March 2, 2009 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 4)
Mr. Rooker said sales taxes are down 9.2 percent from the prior year’s budget. He asked how
much it is down now. Mr. Wiggans said that staff budgeted a little over $14.0 million for FY ’09. Now,
they are actually estimating $12.2 million, or a $1.8 million decline.
Mr. Boyd said that is his point; sales taxes are projected to be relatively flat next year. Mr.
Wiggans said they are projecting a slight increase.
Mr. Slutzky asked the logic behind that projection for sales tax revenues. Mr. Wiggans said staff
has heard that the State is projecting increases in sales tax, so they “piggy-backed” that statement.
Mr. Slutzky said to forget the State, and asked why Mr. W iggans would think sales tax revenues
would be expected to increase at all. Mr. W iggans said staff is cautiously optimistic that there will be a
slight turnaround.
Mr. Robert W alters, Division Manager of Business Taxation, explained that in FY ‘08 the County
had collected $5.5 million at this time of the year. So far this year, the County has collected $5.1 so is
taking some significant drops. What will happen now is that the base will be low and as it goes into a
small recovery and they are hoping for a small turnaround by the end of the fiscal year. Staff has been
trying to project out 22 months.
Mr. Slutzky said the Board is trying to make a budget for a year in advance, but once that is done
it does not have the luxury of doing anything other than cutting things. He suggested taking the national
economists’ revised estimates and reflecting those in this budget process. Mr. Walters clarified that the
numbers would likely change before the end of these work sessions, although he does not know if there
will be significant changes.
Mr. Slutzky said the Board understands that this is the greatest moment of uncertainty ever in this
process, and that is why it is more important to give it your best shot. Mr. Foley said staff recognizes the
need to do that in this process.
Mr. Boyd said there is always a number missing in these budget deliberations; the Board should
have a listing of revised revenues and expenses for the current year, particularly when they are way off
from what was budgeted. It is not easy for him to compare against numbers that were never reached in
the first place. Mr. Foley responded that such a comparison could be provided. As an example, personal
property taxes are projected to continue to decline in the next fiscal year whereas sales taxes are about
flat.
Mr. Rooker suggested providing a one-pager that includes an estimate for full-year comparisons
in four or five categories. Mr. W iggans said those figures are actually in the budget document; there is a
tab for revenues starting on Page 59.
Mr. Foley mentioned that the Mid-year Financial Report reflected staff’s position on each revenue
source and their perceived trends. Also, Mr. Walters is currently reevaluating that, so the Board may wish
to wait until next week to get that information.
Ms. Thomas asked if the amount for personal property taxes includes the amount the State is
providing and has the State kept that figure steady. Mr. W iggans said it is $15.0 million.
Mr. Boyd said when staff uses the term “state” are they relying on the political figures or the
accounting figures. There is a big difference between the two.
Ms. Thomas said there is a cap unless the General Assembly decided to change it this session.
Mr. W alters said they did not even discuss it this year. Politically, they do not want to go back and revisit
the issue.
Mr. Boyd said he mentions it because he had heard that the Governor may have put rosier
pictures in this budget than what was actually presented to the General Assembly. That is the number he
is worried about not using.
Mr. Slutzky said the Board has a significantly reduced budget, eight percent less staff, and a lot of
reductions already built into the budget proposal. They are concerned that when talking about the
Contingency Reserve for next year, there needs to be a good sense of the underlying basis for the
revenue projections being made by staff so when it gets to that point, there can be an intelligent
conversation. Mr. Foley said staff will provide more information about the basis of their projections.
__________
Expenditure Summary
Mr. W iggans reported that the estimated FY ‘10 expenditures are down approximately $600,000
or 0.3 percent from the current year’s budget, which reflects no salary increase for employees, an
additional 15 frozen positions on top of the existing 35 for a total of 50 – or 8.0 percent of the Local
Government workforce. He said there is a 7.0 percent increase in health insurance, with a 5.0 percent
increase in dental insurance rates, but employee premiums will not be changed.
Mr. Rooker said departmental budgets show line item benefit increases of 25 to 30 percent, which
do not seem to relate to the figures Mr. W iggans just presented. Ms. Laura Vinzant, Budget Analyst,
March 2, 2009 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 5)
explained that there may be a change in the number of employees who elected to be under the County’s
insurance.
Ms. Thomas noted that unemployment by other family members may prompt employees to pick
up coverage with the County.
Mr. Dorrier clarified that this budget reflects a 0.3 percent overall reduction totaling $600,000. Mr.
Foley pointed out there is the overall reduction in all departments, but there are dramatic increases in
obligations, so the operating expenditures that existed last year had to go down dramatically.
Mr. W iggans said there is an additional 3.9 percent reduction in departmental operating
expenditures, giving a total of $1.4 million or a 10.0 percent decline in operating expenses since FY ‘08.
He said there is minimal capital outlay in this budget and there are no new strategic initiatives or
programs recommended.
___________
Functional Area Detail
Administration
Mr. Foley reported that in the FY ‘10 functional areas, the Administration category accounts for
about $10.8 million with those expenditures estimated to be down $220,000 or nearly 2.0 percent.
Mr. Foley reported that the Board of Supervisors’ budget increased by 10.8 percent; part of that
increase is for contracted services for minute preparation, plus an increase in the cost of the annual audit
and increased premiums for public officials’ liability insurance. He mentioned that advertising costs have
been reduced, and hopefully they will be lower in the coming year.
Mr. Rooker asked what options are available for advertising. Mr. Davis replied that legal ads are
usually run in The Daily Progress. Staff looked at the C-ville W eekly as an option, but because it is a
weekly paper, it is difficult to meet the legal deadlines for placing advertisements.
Mr. Foley reported that the County Executive’s Office budget has decreased by about 3.0
percent, or $36,000, reflecting the salary of a frozen part-time office associate position and other
operating costs. Overall the budget for the office has decreased by about 35.0 percent - with a portion of
that is a $6,700 decrease in ACE Program publicity. There are other strategies being reviewed regarding
how to continue promoting that program. Staff will be working with other agencies to promote the tax
credits available for voluntary easements. The Board will be discussing some measures to offset losses
during the upcoming work session on the Rural Area Strategies in the Comprehensive Plan.
Ms. Mallek asked if this reduction reflects the decision not to do the video originally planned. Ms.
Lee Catlin, Community Relations Director, explained that staff has been meeting with representatives
from other easement-holding organizations to collaborate on promotion. The public participation person
in her office has been reassigned to spend about one day a week on easement outreach.
Mr. Foley reported that the Human Resources (HR) budget reflects a $154,000 – or a 16.8
percent increase – in expenditures, with a frozen organizational development specialist position. The
majority of the increase - $148,000 – due to the early retirement incentive program the Board put into
place this year.
Ms. Thomas asked for assurance that training programs would not be cut back, since there is the
need to shift personnel around to cover vacancies, she thinks there is more need for training. Mr. Foley
responded that training has been cut back slightly over time, but HR is comfortable with the kind of
training provided. He added that if there is a further revenue downturn which necessitates freezing more
positions, the County’s training program may need to be reevaluated.
Mr. Dorrier asked how many people are taking early retirement. Mr. Foley said staff does not
have a final figure on that yet. They projected that about 10 additional employees would use the early
retirement incentive. Employees need to file for it by April 1st.
Mr. Boyd asked if that is a projection staff makes, or do they get an actuarial firm to do it. Mr.
Foley said the projection is made by HR based on the payout for early retirees on health and VERIP.
Mr. Boyd said when accruing for it, does staff use an actuarial table or is it just an in-house
calculation. Mr. Foley said for the budget, staff uses an in-house calculation. W hat the audit picks up in
terms of the obligation is probably done on a different basis.
Mr. Boyd said at one time this was being paid out of current operating expenses and not being
accrued. Mr. W iggans said there is a new requirement where the County has to account for anticipated
expenses, so it has to be accrued and shown in the accounts.
Mr. Tucker pointed out that this is the new one-year early retirement/buyout incentive program
and staff anticipated that 10 people would take advantage of it at a cost of about $140,000 a year.
Mr. Slutzky said this before the Board committed to motivating 10 additional people to step aside
it thought 15 employees would probably retire anyway through natural attrition over the course of the
March 2, 2009 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 6)
year. Mr. Tucker said staff was nervous about that number; he emphasized that attrition has slowed
down significantly.
Mr. Slutzky asked what will happen if more than 15 people want to take advantage of this
program. Mr. Foley said there would be savings in departmental budgets over the course of the year by
hiring employees in at lower salaries.
Mr. Foley said there is a net decrease in the HR budget if this large increase is taken out – there
is about a 25 percent decrease in Local Government’s share of that total budget.
Mr. Foley said the County Attorney’s Office budget is down about 1.0 percent reflecting a
decrease in part-time wages for temporary assistance from law clerks.
Ms. Thomas asked if it would be possible to get the UVA interns for free. Mr. Davis said it would
decrease reliability. Another problem in his office has to do with space. There is no place for them to be
in the office, and that impacts being able to utilize them.
Mr. Foley reported that the Finance Department has one of the largest reductions in staff, with
their budget being down $264,000 – or 6.2 percent - with numerous positions frozen. He explained that
staff is evaluating the Business Auditor position mentioned in the RMR Study and the best way to follow
up on lost tax revenues. Just filling that position may not be the answer. Consultant services might make
sense. He said GIS employees are already working with the Finance Department through the GIS
system to try and track down where people are reporting to the wrong locality. This project of tracking
down lost revenues between jurisdictions is a major undertaking, and he does not think the County could
rehire that person and have everything taken care of. In the case of Chesterfield and Henrico counties
where they have been working on this for years they went so far as to have different zip codes put into
place.
Mr. Rooker said that is why he wondered about using a third-party recovery company which
normally works for a percentage. There was some question about the privacy aspects. Mr. Walters said
the information they need in order to do their work would require that they go into tax records and look at
the revenue of businesses, and no outside person would be allowed access to those records.
Mr. Rooker asked if a company could get qualified to do that. Mr. Walters said an employee
could do it, but not an outside person.
Mr. Rooker said the County might be able to hire someone who is paid a low base and a
percentage of recovery. They would ultimately have to be an employee, but a lot of people hire in-house
collection people and they are paid a percentage of collections.
Mr. Slutzky liked that idea.
Ms. Mallek asked about outreach to businesses so they understand how important it is that their
money gets to the right locality. Mr. Foley said that will be part of what staff will be addressing to solve
this issue. Mr. Tucker added that after the GIS employees look at it staff can contact those individuals
and make sure they understand they are located in Albemarle County.
Mr. Dorrier asked if there is anything in the budget showing the influence of relying on hi-tech.
Mr. Foley said that is a reason to maximize the GIS system. It might cut down on the workload of an
individual working on this situation. W ith the technology and staff already in place, it can be done
efficiently.
Mr. Boyd asked if staff anticipates that when Access Albemarle comes online it will lessen the
need to fill some of the frozen positions. Mr. Foley said the most honest answer would be “no.” He thinks
better data will be provided in the future, and staff hopes to hold the line on employees, and to the degree
that staff could be reduced, it would be reduced. He just has not heard many folks say these things end
up that way.
Mr. Boyd said he was not thinking particularly about staff, but it was mentioned earlier that audit
fees are increasing, but moving fixed assets to the new system had to take a tremendous amount of work
off of some employee; it went from a manual system to an automated system. That is the one thing that
has been converted, so there has to be some savings somewhere. Mr. W iggans indicated that there
have been conversations with the auditors about that and there may potentially be some savings there.
Mr. Rooker said the auditors are sensitive to the current financial situation. They have clients
who are paying them late, and are finding it harder and harder to find good clients. He suggested that the
County is in a reasonable bargaining position now to perhaps negotiate the audit fees for next year.
Mr. Boyd commented that Farmer & Cox has been a great firm, but sometimes it’s good to
change firms so there is a fresh set of eyes. Mr. Foley noted that the County puts out bids for auditors
every three years, and this is the year to do that.
Ms. Thomas asked about the Land Use Taxation program. It was suggested that revalidation of
the program may make it a more staff intensive operation. Mr. Foley responded that he is evaluating that
in terms of reallocation of staff if it turns out that staff would be needed. Staff has talked specifically with
having the building inspectors help with that effort. He said there are a lot of opportunities throughout the
organization. It is down on real estate assessors as well. He said staff will be noting how employees are
March 2, 2009 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 7)
being reallocated as these work sessions proceed. He noted that in the Finance Department, Real Estate
Division, the real estate supervisor position has not been filled, but there is half of a GIS person from
Community Development who has assumed the responsibility for mapping, etc.
Mr. Foley said he will go ahead and discuss now the question that came up about health
insurance premiums. At the public hearing, there were comments about it, and there is information in the
RMR Study about it also. The overall benefits strategy is to survey the joint Board-approved market every
three years to look at benefits and compare them with the 30 other localities. W hat was shown in the
RMR Study and what is actually in place are two entirely different things. The County targeted slightly
above market at 105 percent when that strategy was approved several years ago. Because no pay
raises are proposed for this coming year, it was suggested in the Five-Year Financial Plan that benefits
be held where they are now. At this time staff expects to do a full review of benefits design in the year
ahead – looking at co-pays on medical and doctor visits to determine if the County is in the right place in
terms of its market. A survey of all public sector agencies throughout the country is done each year and
HR has consultants look at that study for the County. He emphasized that it’s important to look at the
entire picture because members in the market may be different in terms of what they pay in premiums for
family versus employee.
Mr. Foley said the information the Board saw showed there could be millions of dollars in savings
realized. He showed a chart on the screen comparing four localities (the RMR Study only compared four
localities) and it shows that for employee and family the County pays the same amount. It shows that 59
percent of the employee base is in family coverage. If that kind of distribution is assumed for other
localities, it shows that Albemarle is probably saving money compared to those localities.
Mr. Slutzky asked if staff looked at how the County’s risk profile compares to other localities. The
County cannot control how healthy or sick its employees are except through prevention programs. Mr.
Foley said the consultants do a thorough review of that each year. He said the County has invested a lot
of money in wellness programs the last couple of years hoping it will help reduce the number of claims in
the future.
Mr. Dorrier asked if any benefits have been derived from that program yet. He asked if there has
been a reduction in the number of employees who smoke. Mr. Foley said that is harder to track; he will
have to ask HR to reply to that question. There is very active participation in W eightW atcher Programs as
part of the wellness programs.
Mr. Slutzky said wellness programs make sense but the impact can not be measured for years.
Staff might look at the risk/profile of peer localities to see if that accounts for the disparity.
Mr. Boyd said the only way to gauge the County’s benefit programs is to look at the actual dollars
spent. The only way to reasonably do that is to say the County pays “x” percent additional in benefits
over and above salaries and see how that compares to the other localities. Staff needs to look at benefits
in total and not just the medical benefits.
Mr. Rooker said he thought that was part of the market comparisons done every year. He said
this is just a slice of benefits in response to what was in the RMR Study. He wants to complain about
what that study did in this regard. It gave an extremely skewed false picture of the comparisons by
leaving out the family coverage component. He would like it put to the consultants in writing that this
comparison was incredibly misleading because it took a small slice of data and presented it as though it
gave a full picture of potential savings.
Mr. Slutzky said since that perception is out there, he will ask that staff provide the Board with two
things. One, what Mr. Boyd described which is benefits as a percentage of employee costs and second,
data to help understand whether Albemarle had a less healthy year as compared to peer localities. The
Board needs to know whether there is really a problem.
Mr. Boyd said there are other pieces to it, such as the VERIP program. He said this Board made
a decision to do that, but not all counties did, some of them went with 401k’s as opposed to defined
benefits. Mr. Foley said a full benefit design and a comparison to the 30 localities and an evaluation of
the VERIP Program will be done in the coming year.
Mr. Rooker asked if the 105 percent (part of the adopted Compensation Plan) was done on the
basis Mr. Boyd is suggesting.
Ms. Thomas said the Board was told it was hard to pin down that number. It was set at 105
percent meaning the County would do better than average.
Mr. Rooker said a lot of these same questions are asked each year. Generally the Board has
been satisfied that the work done gave a reasonably good picture of what the comparative market was
doing in benefits and what the County was doing; that is for total benefits and not just medical.
Mr. Boyd asked if staff would get that number showing what the County pays. Are benefits 30.0
percent of personnel costs and how does that compare to the 30 peer localities? Mr. Foley said staff will
have that information for the whole process of reviewing the benefit mix.
Mr. Rooker said a 12.0 percent increase is in line with what is going on nationwide.
March 2, 2009 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 8)
Mr. Boyd said it was mentioned earlier that there is no way to gauge the wellness program, but he
has been watching it over the years and the County’s experience rating has been going down since the
wellness plan was started. Mr. Foley said it is new and more immediate benefits will be seen when
starting a new program like that. Something as simple as WeightW atchers makes a difference.
Mr. Foley said there is a decrease of about 3.7 percent - or $98,000 - in the area of Information
Technology, and there are the frozen positions of Office Associate and Programmer Analyst. Capital
outlay was also reduced – for data processing equipment and software – by about 55 percent or $28,000.
The RMR Study suggested dedicating the necessary resources to project management and keeping that
project moving; there is a budget for Access Albemarle that includes money for project management with
part-time assistance now. An RFP will be issued soon for a full-time position for the more complicated
parts of the project. This will not be an ongoing expense.
Mr. Foley said there is a 5.0 percent decrease or $24,000 in the Registrar’s Office expenses,
which is reflected in overtime, part-time help and printing costs resulting from there being no presidential
election in the coming year.
Mr. Rooker said the operating costs for this office are incredibly high when compared to the
salary benefit component. He asked the reason. Mr. Foley said it is due to the cost of election officials
and poll workers who are not counted in the salary line item. They are a contracted type of expense.
Mr. Slutzky said there is some reduction in a non-presidential year, but each precinct still must be
populated. Mr. Foley said there is an $18,000 reduction in operating expenses which is not a large
percentage of the total. There is still the normal level of election work that must be done.
Mr. Slutzky said they did a good job with their budget last year. He pointed out that the lack of
delays during the Federal election was noticeable in the County. Mr. Foley said that office actually
requested some additional funds during the year, but that paid off.
Mr. Foley said that covers the Administration section of the budget. Are there any further
questions, or items the Board would like to put on the list? Are there any follow-up issues?
Mr. Slutzky said he would like to put a placeholder on the issue of volunteer recruitment for the
fire/rescue division. He said it may make sense to have it as an HR issue and that is why he mentioned it
now.
Mr. Dorrier referred to the graph on Page 61 that shows that all revenues are going up. He asked
if there is any possibility the stimulus bill will increase revenues at the Federal level. Mr. W iggans said
staff is still evaluating that. Mr. Tucker said it will depend on whether the County is successful in seeking
competitive grants, and even if those funds are obtained it will only be for a one or two-year period.
Mr. Slutzky said the Board discussed this before Mr. Dorrier got to the meeting today, so he will
explain to him later what was discussed.
Mr. Dorrier asked if there is any other alternative to the real estate tax. He asked how much tax
is raised on machinery and tools. Mr. Davis said the machinery and tools rate cannot be any greater than
the personal property rate. Unless the Board is interested in increasing the personal property tax rate,
that is not an option.
Mr. Slutzky said he does not think that is what Mr. Dorrier is suggesting.
Mr. Dorrier said that is correct.
Mr. Tucker said the State puts caps on localities and Albemarle is at the maximum on all of them
because the Board has made an effort to offset the pressure on real estate.
Ms. Mallek asked if the County is at the maximum for hotels and meals. Mr. Tucker said it is.
Mr. Slutzky suggested staff give the Board a list of taxes showing the State cap and the County’s
rates so it can see that the County has virtually maxed out all of them.
Ms. Thomas said it has been suggested that the County consider a tax on UVA sports game
tickets. She said the Board has talked about an admissions tax and maybe it should discuss it again.
Several years ago Mr. Leonard Sandridge said that if the County were going to do that the University
would need to have several years notice because of the way they work their contracts. Mr. Davis said
there is no enabling legislation that would allow the County to do this. He said that in the Three-Party
Agreement, it says this would be discussed with the University before asking for any legislation.
Mr. Rooker indicated that he would want to see some support from the legislators before even
considering it; such a tax would be broad-based and cover all events, not just UVA’s. Mr. Tucker said
Fairfax County did not impose an admissions tax because they received so many negative comments
from movie theaters that they did not impose the tax.
Ms. Mallek said Delegate Rob Bell had mentioned that other communities are bringing in
requests to the Legislature for entertainment types of taxes as a source of revenue.
Mr. Slutzky said it sounds as though the County is obligated to bring it up at PACC meetings
anyway. He asked if the Board members would like for that to happen next.
March 2, 2009 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 9)
Mr. Rooker said he would first like to see if there is support among the County’s legislators before
even considering it. If there is, it should be brought up at PACC. It has been discussed in the past, and
the tax would be broadly applied, so it would pertain to football and basketball at the high school level
also. Mr. Tucker said when it was discussed the Board said it would do it in conjunction with the City, so
they should also agree.
Mr. Boyd said as a follow-up, all the way through the budget book benefits are shown separate
from salaries, so it is an easy number to calculate. He does not think it will be difficult to give the Board
the comparison he wants.
Mr. Rooker said staff would have to make certain that the line entitled “benefits” contains the
same items in each locality.
Mr. Boyd said whether a locality offered dental insurance or not would not matter because they
might offer something Albemarle does not.
Mr. Slutzky said each of these points is relevant, but he said that staff will figure all of this out
when they give the Board the numbers requested. Mr. Foley said that is all part of the benefits review
staff will do next year. He said when the Five-Year Financial Plan is reviewed, that is a good time to
consider all available fees. Mr. Tucker said he thinks Mr. Rooker is on target. If the legislators are not
interested, it would be a waste of time.
Mr. Rooker said the graph Mr. Dorrier pointed out on Page 61 is an example of what has been
experienced over the years, most revenue lines are flat and the only place where there are any increases
in revenues is in property taxes. Because there is no particular increase in Federal or State funding it just
continues to put pressure on property taxes.
Ms. Thomas said that pressure is even heavier in Albemarle than in most localities because the
State is paying less per capita.
Mr. Tucker asked if there are other functional areas to be discussed this afternoon.
Mr. Slutzky said he assumes the recommended budget includes no increase in pay for the Board
of Supervisors just like all County employees. Mr. Tucker said that is correct.
Mr. Boyd said he would like to know where in the composite index formula Albemarle sways from
other localities.
Ms. Thomas said if part of the reason the County is penalized is that its tax rate is low, is that a
statement Mr. Boyd would be willing to consider.
Mr. Boyd said he would. Mr. Tucker said the State assumes Albemarle’s ability to pay is greater
because the County’s tax rate is lower when compared to other localities.
Ms. Thomas said there are 13 counties that are in a worse position with the composite index.
Some of those are in the Northern Virginia area where there is a higher cost of living.
Mr. Rooker said Ms. Thomas is referring to the SOQ formula.
Ms. Thomas said there are two; there is the composite index and there is a fiscal stress index and
Albemarle is the fourteenth from the bottom on both of those.
Mr. Dorrier asked about the possibility of Local Government implementing non-paid furloughs.
Mr. Tucker said that is an alternative the County would have to move to if there is a further downturn in
the economy. It is on his list of possibilities although it has never been done before in Albemarle.
Mr. Dorrier asked if it would produce a good amount of revenue. Mr. Tucker said a furlough
would need to be for several days; it is his next to last option before going to layoffs.
__________
Judicial
Mr. Bryan Elliott, Assistant County Executive, addressed the Board, stating that the
recommended budget for Judicial is $3.8 million funding four different areas and representing a $44,600
decrease from the current year. The Sheriff’s office represents about 51.0 percent of the expenditures
in this category, with the Commonwealth’s Attorney’s office representing 24 percent and the Clerk of
the Circuit Court and the Courts making up the balance of the funding. There is a decrease in
expenditures for the Clerk of the Circuit Court of $47,386 because one full-time equivalent position is
being dropped. There is $2,000 in capital outlay proposed for the Judicial category for furnishings in dire
need of replacement and court recording equipment that must be replaced. In the Commonwealth’s
Attorney’s office there is a decrease of $5,500 as new personnel were hired at lower salaries, and an
increase of $975 in capital outlay. He mentioned that an additional position requested for this office at a
cost of $112,000 is unfunded.
Mr. Slutzky asked if there is any anticipated increase in cases for prosecution next year given
financial circumstances.
March 2, 2009 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 10)
Ms. Denise Lunsford, Commonwealth’s Attorney, indicated that there is no data to support that
assumption. However, her office is understaffed by one position; they are working to correct some
numbers the Compensation Board has because they control the number of positions the office is allotted.
For some reason, since 2005, between 400 and 500 sentencings were not reported to the Sentencing
Commission by the Clerk’s Office. That is where the Compensation Board gets the information it uses to
set the number of employees. She said the judge has been gracious and last week signed 80 sentencing
orders for things that should have been reported years ago. By her calculations, under Compensation
Board formulas her office should be entitled to one additional position once all of the numbers are
corrected, assuming they will let the office correct numbers for several years into the past. She said they
expect an increase in State funding of $8,000 for an increase in salary of one position. Also, $33,840 is
shown for operations for her office, but OMB was going to recommend $36,370, and she understands
that will be adjusted as a supplemental appropriation.
Mr. Dorrier asked for an update on the Drug Court situation. Ms. Lunsford responded that she
looked through the budget bill and could find nothing about it in terms of State funding. If the State
reduces the funding for the court, the Drug Court Board will meet within the next 10 days to determine
whether and how the Court can continue. She noted that the Drug Court is funded 60 percent by the
State, with the remainder being paid from local funds.
Mr. Elliott pointed out that the Drug Court is a $310,000 a year operation; $180,000 comes from
the State with the remaining $130,000 split between the City and the County.
Mr. Slutzky asked that Mr. Tucker add the Drug Court to the list of topics to revisit so this can be
discussed at the end of the budget work sessions.
Mr. Rooker asked how Albemarle compares with other areas in terms of the percentage funded
locally for the Judicial categories. Albemarle is paying 44.0 percent of the costs for the Commonwealth’s
Attorney, 50.0 percent of the costs for the Clerk’s Office, and 38.0 percent of the costs for the Sheriff’s
Office, and for the Courts the County funds the entire cost. He would like to have a better understanding
of why Albemarle is paying such a large share of expenses for these constitutional officers.
Mr. Tucker said that several years ago the Board chose to supplement the salaries in the offices
of the Commonwealth’s Attorney (that enabled the County to hire very qualified prosecutors) and the
Sheriff. Mr. Davis added that the State Code requires localities to fund health benefits for employees in
these offices to the same level as that of Local Government employees. As Mr. Tucker indicated, the
Commonwealth’s Attorney and the Sheriff opted to become a part of the County’s pay plan a few years
ago and those salaries are now County-scaled rather than Compensation Board-scaled. The
Compensation Board reimburses the County the amount it would otherwise pay for those salaries.
Mr. Elliott reported that there is a decrease in salaries for the Sheriff’s Office, with new positions
filled with individuals getting a lower salary, a reduction in overtime, and a decrease in net operating
expenditures by $7,735 – or 3.4 percent. He said the Sheriff is requesting additional capital outlay in the
amount of $7,800 for equipment for three replacement vehicles.
Mr. Elliott said the Circuit Court judge’s budget is slated to increase $1,887 due to small
increases in line items and a $500 capital outlay to replace some equipment; the General District Court
is slated to increase $3,600 with additional costs for shredding, copy expenses and office supplies as well
as furniture; funding for the Magistrate’s Office is level; with the Juvenile Court having the biggest
increase which is associated with the opening of the new building – those expenses are shared with the
City by a pre-set formula.
Mr. Rooker asked if it is common for localities to pay for administrative support (secretary to the
judge) for judges. Mr. Davis responded that it is the case in busy court systems, and Albemarle is more
frugal in that regard than many other localities. By State law, the County is obligated to provide
adequate facilities to the judges and the courts operation. The new Juvenile Court Building will be more
expensive to operate.
__________
Public Safety
Mr. Elliott reported that the total recommended budget for the Public Safety category is $29.2
million, approximately $167,300 less than in the current fiscal year, with Police representing 42.0 percent
of expenditures in this area, Fire and Rescue at 23.0 percent, and the Jail at 11.0 percent. He said
there are 3.5 frozen positions in the Police Department, with three of those being officers, putting the
County at 21 positions below the Comprehensive Plan service objective of 1.5 officers per 1,000
residents. He said their overall expenditures are decreasing by $2,164. Part of that is due to a reduction
in overtime. In the current year there has been a significant increase in W orkman’s Compensation
premiums for Police and Fire/Rescue personnel. For the Police alone, it amounted to $60,272.
Mr. Rooker asked if that experience is rated. Mr. Elliott said that in the last five years there have
been some very large workman’s compensation claims. It only takes one or two claims to increase that a
large amount; Police and Fire/Rescue personnel have the biggest exposure.
Mr. Elliott said State funds for the Victim/Witness Grant Program were decreased by $6,600 in
the current fiscal year and that continues into FY ‘10; one of the two people in that office is now taking the
County’s health insurance. There is an outlay for $67,300 in capital equipment in the way of machinery,
communication equipment and supplies, and firearms replacement for the Police Department.
March 2, 2009 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 11)
Mr. Slutzky asked if the declining economy is expected to create an increase in demand for police
services in the community. How can that be reconciled? Mr. Elliott said staff looked at that in terms of
staffing. There are three frozen police officer positions now which rewinds the clock back to about 2006
for level of force. The overall crime rate is about the same as it was in that time period. It could be
concluded that given the economic realities, crimes such as burglaries, larcenies, etc. would likely
increase. Thus far in this fiscal year, the Police Department has remained fairly consistent in terms of its
response times to Part 1 crimes. There was some slip in the response time standard in the fourth quarter.
Mr. Slutzky said about 3,000 people have moved to the County since 2006, which by the
standard set in the Comprehensive Plan would require two additional officers. He asked Chief Miller how
comfortable he is with this staff reduction.
Chief John Miller said the County is down to 120 officers now and he is concerned because there
are two officers retiring – one in April and one in June – along with a civilian position retirement today. As
far as crime spiking, what is seen across the country from the Police Executive Research firm – the IACP
– is that there has been no spike yet in crime.
Mr. Slutzky asked if Chief Miller is comfortable with this level of funding. Chief Miller said that he
is today.
Mr. Slutzky asked if the two police officers who are retiring will be replaced. Chief Miller said that
more than likely those positions will be frozen.
Mr. Slutzky asked if there has been an increase in gang activity. Chief Miller indicated that it has
been observed in the City, the County, and surrounding counties – although it is not as prevalent as it is
in the Valley.
Mr. Rooker emphasized that the Police Department’s work in this area has been tremendous, and
has minimized the impact gang activity has had in this community.
Mr. Elliott reported that the Fire and Rescue Department is proposed to have a $6,797 decrease
in its budget, and there is the continuation of the frozen recruitment and retention captain position in this
budget. There is an increase of $44,000 in compensatory time payout, which has not previously been
budgeted; under FLSA they are required to budget for it. That expenditure increase is partially offset by a
decrease in overtime of about $30,500. There is an increase in workman’s compensation of $42,976,
and net operating expenditures are slated to decrease $51,366 with a decrease in capital of about
$6,600.
Mr. Rooker asked where the County purchases its workman’s compensation insurance. Mr.
Elliott responded that it is bought through the Virginia Municipal League (VML).
Mr. Elliott referred to Page 117 of the proposed budget. He said that for the current fiscal year
there was $121,341 budgeted for the recruitment and retention position, but this year that is proposed to
be reduced to $26,114.
Ms. Thomas asked what happened to the whole package of suggestions the volunteers
presented last year. Mr. Elliott said that request will actually be coming to the Board on W ednesday as a
current budget request; it includes $157,000 for the volunteer incentive program. The proposal is to
spread the $157,000 over the next three fiscal years geared toward a leadership development program
for officers within each volunteer station as a type of succession planning tool; the idea is to develop
leadership capabilities within the volunteer departments. He added that there is a very active recruitment
and retention subcommittee of the Fire & Rescue Advisory Board. The Fire/Rescue Department does not
have an employee now who can be assigned to work with that group so it has bee handled by Mr. John
Oprandy, Assistant Fire Chief, and others. There is also funding through a grant for advertising and
promotion; there is an effort to retain an agency to develop a marketing plan to promote awareness of
volunteer opportunities within the fire/rescue system.
Mr. Slutzky said in his conversations with fire and rescue folks they feel there would be value in
having Human Resources staff actively engage in the recruitment of volunteers. The more volunteers the
County has the less career staff is needed which seems like money well spent. He asked why that
position is not recommended to be filled. Mr. Elliott said the position ended up in fire/rescue because it
was thought the individual in that position would have fire/rescue credentials, would know fire/rescue
systems so could be utilized in areas beyond just volunteer recruitment and retention.
Mr. Slutzky said he thought that could be applicable to someone in Human Resources. Several
people in the community have said they are apprehensive about the position being in Fire/Rescue.
Ms. Mallek said having an employee with a uniform and car is a more expensive than having an
administrative person take on the recruiting task. Mr. Dan Eggleston, Fire Chief, commented that he
generally has no objection to having this position located in Human Resources, but if the Board is really
interested in moving forward with this, he would suggest that the Advisory Board revisit the current
Recruitment and Retention Strategy Plan, discuss the expectations of that plan, and then decide if this
position should be in Human Resources, in Fire/Rescue, or contracted out to a private firm. They need to
go back and hammer out the expectations for this position before considering where it should be placed.
Ms. Mallek said the Fire/Rescue Advisory Board wants the position to be redesigned, not
continued in the same way. Mr. Eggleston said since this position was added about five years ago, it has
March 2, 2009 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 12)
been operating under a plan that was designed by the Advisory Board. If there needs to be a change,
they should go back, revise that plan, and then decide who is best to execute that plan. Mr. Tucker
pointed out that what is coming before the Board on Wednesday has been agreed to by the volunteers
and staff. Mr. Eggleston agreed noting that it has been scaled down considerably since last year’s
budget session with the position aimed primarily at leadership training for the volunteers over a three-year
period.
Mr. Elliott said Albemarle has been bucking the trend. Nationwide volunteerism has been on the
slide, Albemarle has actually seen about a 2.0 percent per year increase. He thinks a lot of it is due to
the recruitment and retention program.
Mr. Boyd asked Mr. Slutzky if he was proposing that this position be reinstated. At this time, it is
a frozen position.
Mr. Slutzky said that is his inclination. He wants to clarify whether that position should be located
in Human Resources, and how it fits into the overall strategy for volunteer recruitment and maintenance
of the volunteer network. The County is heavily dependent on the volunteer system, and does not want
to undermine that in any way.
Mr. Boyd said he agrees, but Mr. Elliott just said Albemarle is doing a better job than most other
counties, so he would not want to go back and emulate what they are doing.
Mr. Slutzky said he does not think anybody is recommending that a position be created in Human
Resources and then have it changed into something else. If the County is able to retain its volunteer
basis, that is important. It sounds like the next step is to take up the whole question of the recruitment
strategy and how this frozen staff position fits into that strategy. If the Advisory Board’s recommendation
should be that a part-time Human Resources position be implemented in the near term, he would not
want that to be foreclosed with adoption of this budget. Mr. Foley said a Human Resources person
cannot really speak to a volunteer about what a volunteer does. Maybe whether that person were an
officer in Fire/Rescue is an issue.
Mr. Slutzky said he has had so many people tell him it should be a Human Resources position
that he would not want to dismiss the idea. He said Human Resources recruits across the subject matter
of disciplines in the County and this is simply one of them. He sees no relevance to the idea that they do
not know about volunteer recruitment for the fire companies because they are HR employees; they recruit
for all other types of employees in the County. Putting the question back to the Advisory Board and
getting a recommendation from them sounds like the best plan.
Mr. Boyd said Mr. Slutzky did not understand the point he was trying to make. He wants to look
at best practices for recruitment. He is not sure the best recruitment is not already in the individual fire
stations.
Ms. Mallek said that is where the volunteers are coming from now.
Mr. Boyd said there are other things to consider such as the dormitory put in at Hollymead in
order to get students. Did that work as a volunteer tool?
Mr. Slutzky said he thinks all of that should be a part of what the Advisory Board considers. He
just wants the best recruitment strategy possible.
Ms. Thomas said there is often conversation in the community about things that could be done by
many types of volunteers. Since Human Resources will probably not be as busy given their work
slowdown from the hiring freeze, maybe a position could be assigned to work as a volunteer coordinator.
Mr. Tucker said staff can talk to Ms. Kimberly Suyes in Human Resources about assigning someone to be
a volunteer coordinator.
Mr. Rooker said there is an indication that there may be some expanded money for AmeriCorps
to set up volunteer programs. He had sent an e-mail to Mr. Tucker recently about possible funding to
clean up the ponds (catch basins) at the corner of Greenbrier Drive and Branchlands Boulevard across
from the Senior Center. There is a question about whether the County can get the prisoner detail to do
some of that work. He said VDOT will have little money to clean up along roads in the future, so the
County will have to get creative about ways to get that done. Mr. Tucker said staff tried this several years
ago and it did not work. Maybe it was how it was organized, but at some point there would need to be a
person to organize and coordinate what the volunteers do.
Mr. Elliott reported that there is an overall decrease of $40,600 in Other Fire and Rescue
Services, driven primarily by the $157,000 moved out of the volunteer incentive program. This is partially
offset by an $11,000 increase – 5.6 percent - in insurance premiums paid for the volunteer companies for
property, liability, auto and accident. There is a decrease in the amount of funding that goes to CARS
based on the call volume in the County versus the City; all the other volunteer departments are level
funded over the current fiscal year.
Mr. Elliott said the Forest Fire Extinction contract is slated to increase, as is the fire contract
with the City. The County is over budget for the City Fire Contract this year, as the call volume
increased by 141 calls in FY ‘08 – a 9.0 percent - with an additional 5.23 percent increase projected over
FY ‘00. He noted that the City is primarily called out for the Ivy area, the Pantops area and an area north
March 2, 2009 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 13)
of town where they are back-up to the Seminole Fire Department plus several other areas such as Fifth
Street. The call volume continues to grow.
Mr. Rooker said he wondered if the City is going out on calls already covered by one of the
County companies. W hen he sees a response, he usually sees what he would call an over-response.
Mr. Slutzky asked if Emergency Services overreacts to calls. Mr. Eggleston said compared to the
industry and other like-sized communities, Albemarle’s response protocol for EMS is not unusual.
However, they are always looking to streamline, especially considering the budget situation. The
Advisory Board will be examining this issue to try and prioritize EMS calls. There are an increased
number of calls from alarm activations, car fires, house fires, brush fires and other emergencies in the
area.
Ms. Mallek asked if fire engines are sent first from the fire companies which have paid staff
because they have more training. Mr. Eggleston said the protocol across the board requires that the
closest unit be sent to an EMS call.
Mr. Rooker said his point is that a standard could be set by people internal to the business that
then becomes a standard that may or may not make sense. He asked if it makes sense to send three
trucks from different locations to a car accident. Maybe that is the standard, but he questions whether it
is common sense.
Mr. Slutzky said that is two different issues. One is the number of people who end up at the
scene over a period of time. He agrees that eventually they seem to overwhelm the scene. Second, Mr.
Eggleston said the protocol calls for the quickest response particularly when there is human safety
involved, and that makes sense.
Mr. Rooker said he just wants to be sure that from a common sense standpoint staff looks at
responses to determine if there is an over response to certain situations. He thinks that is especially true
when the City is called in because the County pays for their responses.
Ms. Mallek commented that you can’t run a firehouse on $122,000, so it is a good deal in many
respects to pay the City to cover.
Mr. Rooker said all the Board members agreed it was a good idea to renew the contract with the
City instead of making other changes the Board had looked at making. He said there is a significant
increase over the base figure and it is something the Board does not control so is a budget item that can
inflate. The Board needs to keep a reasonable reign over when the City is sent out. Mr. Eggleston said
the Fire/Rescue Department is constantly reviewing response protocols to make sure they are
appropriate for the level of call. A lot of this is a result of the call taker at the ECC. There are many cell
phone users on the roads who call in to report every traffic incident, and that incident can be described in
many different ways.
Mr. Boyd asked Mr. Eggleston if he had some way to code the degree of the incident and how
many responded. As an example, he was at Applebee’s one night and a fight broke out in the parking lot.
Two fire trucks, a rescue squad and the police showed up. They basically broke up the fight, and the two
guys left. Mr. Eggleston said that generally, for fire calls, they know how many people show up on the
calls. Actually, the number of people responding to the scene in a reasonable amount of time is still
below what it should be. He admits that there are times when it appears there is more apparatus on
scene than there needs to be.
Mr. Boyd said he understands that, but feels there should be a record kept to show how many
times that happens.
Ms. Mallek said the companies all record when they respond, so there should be adequate
records.
Mr. Rooker said the ECC needs to be sure they are not over responding to calls so they initiate
responses from many more companies than necessary.
Mr. Elliott said in terms of other Public Safety contributions, the County’s contribution for the ECC
is scheduled to decrease, as well as to the Regional Jail and the Juvenile Detention Center. All of
these amounts are set by formula.
Mr. Rooker said this is the first time he has seen a decrease in the Jail contribution. Mr. Tucker
said there has been a decrease in County inmate population, but the City’s population has increased. He
noted that the Jail is now 156 percent over capacity.
Ms. Mallek said she understands the State has completely quit on their obligation to take state
prisoners away from the local jail. Mr. Tucker said that is true because of the bulging State prisons. In
addition, the Jail Board has been looking at adding a minimum, security prison (which is possible when
the jail reaches 156 percent over capacity), but the General Assembly is no longer offering any locality
funds for capital expansion.
Mr. Elliott reported that there is a proposed increase of $22,456 to the SPCA, although their
funding request for $377,000 was $202,000 greater than the current fiscal year. He said they are
concerned about the City’s and the County’s contributions toward the pound. He noted that the SPCA
March 2, 2009 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 14)
contract actually contains a CPI adjustment which they have not used in the past. Staff aggregated all of
those CPI adjustments and that $22,456 increase represents an increase in the daily rate for dogs from
$100 to $112 and for cats from $50 to $57.
Mr. Slutzky asked if that has been brought to the attention of the SPCA. Mr. Elliott said it has
been submitted to them but they have asked that the County take a longer-term look at their overall costs,
and staff is reviewing that now with the City.
Mr. Slutzky said at the public hearing there was a suggestion that if the City and the County did
not carry the load the SPCA feels they are responsible for the SPCA might shift those pound
responsibilities to the City and the County which would be more costly than the contributions presently
being made. Mr. Elliott said the SPCA contract renews every December, and there is a 60-day out clause
so they would have to notify the County by October 1 of each year whether or not they wanted to
terminate the contract. If so, the County would have to pick up operation of a pound. In terms of a
comparable, it is difficult for staff to find one, but the SPCA estimates the cost could be from $500,000 to
$1.0 million a year collectively for the City and the County to operate a similar pound. Staff is looking to
some peer localities for their annual operating costs. There is a benchmark with the ICMA for costs
nationwide for animal services.
Mr. Boyd asked if there was any encumbrance put on the new SPCA building since the County
contributed significantly to that building. Second, is the per day expense for a limited number of days per
animal. Mr. Elliott said the formula is convoluted. Staff looks at a census at the end of the calendar year
and the County pays based on what the census shows. That census is also reported to the Department
of Agriculture. The $500,000 contributed by the City and the County for the new facility has no
encumbrance. There was a statement made at the public hearing that the City and the County
contributions have remained flat, but that is not the case. About ten years ago, the County’s contribution
was between $40,000 and $60,000 a year. This year the proposal is for $198,000.
Mr. Tucker noted that the no-kill policy implemented in 2005 by the SPCA – the SPCA did not
inform the County of the change – increased costs significantly. He said the County has met the contract
and that is not disputed. The Board needs to consider whether to stick to the contract, amend it, or open
its own facility. It would be very expensive to do that and he does not think it is appropriate. But, he does
not know that the County can afford at this time the amount of money they are asking for.
Ms. Thomas asked if staff knows what the County is required to do. Mr. Elliott said an animal
must be held a minimum of six days to ten days. Mr. Tucker said staff met with representative from the
SPCA last week and asked for information on what the State requires of the County.
Mr. Rooker said they have gone way beyond what is required, and so are incurring additional
costs because of that decision.
Ms. Mallek asked how far beyond what is required are they holding animals.
Ms. Thomas said she understands they have done a good job of getting animals transported to
other states, but that is also expensive. However, the no-kill policy was a very expensive decision.
Ms. Mallek said the Nelson County shelter (Almost Home Pet Adoption Center) transports
animals to other states and it is done entirely by volunteers.
Mr. Rooker asked if the County is legally obligated to operate a pound. Mr. Davis confirmed that
Albemarle is obligated to have a pound for unlicensed dogs, not cats.
Mr. Dorrier asked if counties like Chesterfield and Hanover have their own facilities. Mr. Elliott
responded that the trends vary by locality, with some contracting with the SPCA and some operating their
own pounds. It seems that the more rural counties operate their own pound.
Mr. Slutzky said he would like to see the no-kill policy continue, but the County cannot be held
ransom either. There needs to be some meaningful discussion on this, and hopefully the situation will be
resolved to the satisfaction of all parties.
Mr. Elliott reported that OAR and Community Attention are to be level funded. The Drug Court
funding can be found in the OAR section.
Ms. Thomas noted that the Board amended the Strategic Plan to emphasize prevention in the
safety field, and certainly OAR and the Drug Court are major aspects of a preventive policy.
Mr. Slutzky asked if the Drug Court should be added to the list.
Mr. Rooker said it is already on the list. He does not know that there has been any complaint
about funding in this area, but there may be a deficit with the Drug Court depending on what was done at
the General Assembly. Mr. Elliott said that for OAR, last fall the Board agreed to fund the County’s share
of their state cut which is about $8,800 for the current year. The Drug Court was held harmless for the
current year. The other element of OAR is the Mohr Center. He said a letter concerning this from Region
10 was forwarded to the Board members. That funding does not appear to have been reinstated in the
final State budget.
Mr. Slutzky asked the amount. Mr. Elliott said it is $86,000 in State aid. Staff is not sure at this
time what the County’s share of that amount will be.
March 2, 2009 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 15)
Ms. Thomas asked that it be added to the list.
__________
Public Works
Mr. Foley reported that Public Works represents about $4.6 million of the total budget, with most
of that allocated to General Services operations, the contribution to the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority
as well as Facilities Development which oversees construction. He said this area has decreased about
1.7 percent - or $80,000. In General Services there is an increase of $69,000 or 2.0 percent. Although
this budget includes two frozen custodial positions, there is an increase of about $144,000 – or 23.9
percent - in utility costs for Local Government buildings and streetlights. He said the County has reduced
energy consumption in its buildings - energy costs have been reduced by about 12.6 percent combined
among the major facilities - but there is a 31.0 percent increase in power costs which will not yield any
savings.
Mr. Dorrier mentioned that there are new lights that are more energy efficient. Mr. Foley said the
County has done dramatic change-outs of lights and systems to try and take advantage of energy
savings, which achieved that 12.6 percent. As an example, there are now photocells in streetlights, and
staff is in the process of checking all of those to be sure they are working properly. Electricity cost
increases are the big factor here. When energy costs are factored out of the General Services budget, it
actually decreases by 4.7 percent or $134,000 – including reductions to median mowing (A minimum of
median mowing will be retained, but it will not be as frequent as in the past), maintenance contracts,
storage building lease and rent, and travel/training/education.
Ms. Thomas said the amount for the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority shows a slight decrease. At
the last meeting of the RSWA, the director said that certain services would not be covered by fees so it
would generate requests for more contributions from the City and the County. She asked if the County
should be putting more money into solid waste at this time. Mr. Tucker replied that some City members of
the RSW A Board wanted to implement changes to the Recycling Center next fiscal year, but he does
not think Albemarle can do that. There is to be a windshield survey and interviews done to establish
where users of that center come from; use of that center has always been close to 50/50. He was
concerned that if that idea is pushed, the County will be stuck with the total cost of the McIntire Center
before the County can get a recycling center up and running. The RSW A should be the entity that
handles recycling, not the City and the County handling it separately. If that were to be the case there
would be no need for the RSW A which was created to coordinate those efforts for both the City and the
County. He asked Mr. Mark Graham about the $50,000 reduction for the RSW A.
Mr. Mark Graham, Director of Community Development, said that in prior years, there was
uncertainty about what the County’s share of the operation would be. The Memorandum of Agreement
between the City, the County, and the RSW A provides a better understanding of the operating expenses
than in the past so that amount can be cut down. The total appropriation of $400,000 was not being
spent, but was being carried over.
Ms. Thomas mentioned that the cleanup of the Ivy Landfill site is in the capital budget instead of
in operating. She asked if that amount is staying steady; it is about $1.0 million.
Mr. Boyd asked why the County had spent twice as much as anticipated in the current fiscal year
on Solid Waste. Mr. Graham explained that some of the carryover money from operations was applied
to environmental expenses, so it was essentially an accounting change.
Mr. Rooker said there was a study conducted to determine how solid waste disposal could best
be handled in the community. He asked what has happened to that study.
Ms. Thomas said the Board will be talking about that study at Wednesday’s meeting.
Mr. Foley reported that the Facilities Development budget has a decrease of about $100,000 –
or 13.2 percent - with a capital projects manager position frozen and some services are being contracted
out and charged to the capital budget as a way to compensate for project fluctuations. Overall, that
operating budget has decreased about 35.0 percent.
Mr. Slutzky said he would like to mention something that is not actually a part of this budget. He
has been looking at ways to extend the useful life of some of the vehicles in the County’s fleet. He had a
preliminary conversation with Mr. George Shadman about a faculty member at UVA who has students
converting cars to electric vehicles. That person is interested in having his next year’s class convert a
couple of fleet vehicles to determine their performance characteristics and then make sure an electric
vehicle could satisfy those requirements. He thought the County might donate a vehicle (one that is
about to be retired for scrap and which has virtually no value) to the UVA along with the cost of materials
for the conversion. If the useful life of a vehicle could be extended and the cost of operating it reduced -
electricity is much cheaper than gas - it might make economic sense to convert the existing fleet as it
ages out. He will be presenting a proposal on this to the Board soon.
Mr. Rooker said that employees were added in this area several years ago based on plans in the
CIP. Now, the capital budget has been cut substantially, and some transportation projects are not going
forward. He thinks the Board needs to look at the number of people on that staff. There is a key
performance indicator noted for this category and there are many capital projects in the works, but as
those are completed it might be reasonable to freeze another position. Mr. Foley said staff has been
looking at that suggestion, but he would like to clarify that the only position actually added to this area
March 2, 2009 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 16)
over the last five-plus years is the one that’s frozen right now. This operation was a part of the
Community Development Department, then it was moved to General Services and then it was broken out
and accounted for separately, so staffing has not actually increased.
Mr. Boyd said he thought the Board created an administrative position for it. Mr. Foley said a
senior project manager position was converted to a director position and the salary increased. In terms of
the total FTEs frozen positions, it has not changed.
Mr. Slutzky noted that the CIP projects have not been eliminated, only delayed for a year or more.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks they will be delayed much longer than that, so he thinks it is something
the Board needs to keep in mind.
__________
Human Development
Mr. Elliott reported that overall expenditures in Human Development are proposed at just over
$19.0 million – a $220,345 increase over FY ‘09, with the biggest driver of that being the Tax Relief for
the Elderly and Disabled – increasing over $300,000 each year.
Mr. Rooker asked if that is the trend. Mr. Elliott said staff is seeing that trend in terms of the use
of this program. It has been growing exponentially year after year and staff thinks that will continue into
next year.
Ms. Thomas said it has been pointed out to her that the County does not have a cap on this
program as some communities do. If this becomes an item that grows too much, the Board might want to
look at its policy of what the County pays.
Mr. Slutzky said the County’s ordinance gets close to $200,000 in protected assets and that is
quite generous.
Mr. Boyd said it can actually go a lot higher than that. He has discussed this with Ms. Thomas.
Mr. Rooker said it might be helpful to see how much of the cost is taking place at the high-dollar
amount.
Ms. Thomas said if it is growing by numbers of people she would think that is probably a good
thing. If it is growing by just a few people learning how to play the game she might not be in favor.
Ms. Mallek commented that the people she knows who use it have tiny little houses and acreage,
so it’s helping them to survive. Mr. Elliott said staff can provide some additional information on this, but it
appears to be driven by the number of users.
Mr. Elliott reported that the Social Services Department budget is slated to decrease by
$127,000; there is an existing assistant director position and two office associate positions that are
frozen; one of the office associate positions will be shared on a part-time basis with the Housing Office.
There will likely be five or more positions taking advantage of the County’s retirement. He noted that in
this department, there are State dollars associated with freezing a position and that does not equate to
the revenue savings of one FTE.
Mr. Slutzky said the department gets increased Federal dollars when some programs go up, so
are there FTE requirements which are mandated by the Federal Government to provide services within a
certain time window? Mr. Elliott said that is true. He suggested that the director of the department speak.
He said caseloads are on the increase, particularly in the eligibility areas. There are a number of
communities that are also facing the same dilemma, rising caseloads without the ability to bring on
additional positions.
Mr. Slutzky asked if the County is required to meet performance standards so the loss of FTEs
puts it into a problem area, or does it have the freedom to provide services more poorly? Ms. Kathy
Ralston, Director of Social Services, pointed out that the department is not allowed to have waiting lists,
so it must serve every person who “comes through the door” within certain program areas. Since they
cannot keep up with the growing workload, their performance measures suffer. There is the potential for
State sanctions. So far they have not had any sanctions, but they are breathing down the Social Service
Departments neck to make sure performance standards are met on processing applications. They have
been doing that through overtime work.
Mr. Slutzky asked if the current FTE level is sufficient to accommodate a reasonably anticipated
increase in the demand for services. He asked if Ms. Ralston would counsel the Board to provide for
some contingencies. Ms. Ralston said she is aware of the County’s financial position now, and more
acutely aware of the State’s position and what they are not providing for the department. She said by the
State’s work load measures, the department is down 17 positions in FY ’09. That does not take into
account the increase seen since from last July to date.
Mr. Slutzky asked if she would be understaffed if caseloads were to climb and should the Board
provide for that contingency. Does she feel the department can make it through with the current level of
staffing no matter what happens? Ms. Ralston replied that the department is deluged now and they are
not making it very well. They cannot meet all performance measures of the State. The President’s
stimulus package has money for Food Stamp administration, but its money over a two-year period so staff
March 2, 2009 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 17)
won’t likely be added. For eligibility staffing, it takes three or more months to recruit and hire someone
and another year before they are able to handle a full caseload.
Mr. Slutzky asked if the Department is fulfilling their commitments now by paying staff to work
overtime, and can she keep doing that? Ms. Ralston said that over the last few months there has been a
lot of stressed staff in the office. She said they are not meeting their standards although they are
processing cases. They are meeting their food processing guidelines, and are almost meeting the
Medicaid and TANIFF guidelines, but are not meeting their timely response guidelines in Child Protective
Services.
Mr. Rooker said to put this in perspective in terms of State, Federal and local obligations, over the
years the County has picked up the State component of the cost for positions where the Federal
Government was willing to fund its share of the positions, but the State was not willing to do so. He said
the County’s net cost for Social Services this year is about $4.0 million. Are other localities also picking
up the State’s obligations in this area? He said it is not right that the Department is understaffed, and it is
not right that the State has not funded the positions but they are able to mandate the number of positions
the Department should have. He said the County has been stepping in to meet those obligations of the
State. Even though the Federal stimulus money is only for two years, the County needs to utilize that
money. Hopefully, the economic climate will improve in two years. He said the County does things that
are optional, they are not mandated. Should employees be switched from doing things that are not
mandated in order to adequately cover areas that are mandated?
Mr. Slutzky asked if the community could absorb those non-mandatory social services. Ms.
Ralston explained that there are three non-mandated programs provided by the Department. They are:
General Relief provides burial assistance to indigent individuals and the unattached Child Program helps
to keep the foster care caseload down; the Bright Stars program; and, the Family Support program. The
Family Support program has helped keep the number of foster care youth from coming into foster care.
There is a similar pattern with the Bright Stars Program in that they are able to follow up with those kids
through grade 5 to try and keep them on track.
Ms. Thomas said those are really good preventive programs.
Mr. Rooker asked how many staff members are dedicated to family support. Ms. Ralston said
there are six.
Ms. Thomas said when she has to decide if she wants to tax people in Albemarle County
anything, she has to decide if their money is being spent for something that is really necessary.
Unfortunately, for the next couple of years, this is the area that will be the most necessary of all the things
done by the Department.
Mr. Slutzky said the people being serviced by these programs do not have anymore belt
tightening available to them. Ms. Ralston said if there is not a Family Support Program she has no doubt
that the Child Protective Services caseload will increase. There has been an increase in that program of
52 percent since last January. Those cases are the ones that are the least severe so they can engage
their Family Support workers in those cases to try and prevent those kids from coming into foster care.
Mr. Dorrier asked what percentage of applicants are illegal immigrants. Ms. Ralston said she did
not know the percentage of applicants, but as to benefit programs illegal immigrants are not eligible for
TANIFF, food stamps, and Medicaid. However, if there is an emergency such as an illegal immigrant
having a child at UVA Hospital, Medicaid funds can be used to pay for the delivery if the individual meets
all of the requirements of Medicaid.
Ms. Mallek asked about the loss of the Bright Stars coordinator and how that will affect the
program. Mr. Elliott said the position was grant-funded as part of a pilot program through the State. A
blended type of classroom was being developed. It took kids that were in Bright Stars and folded in
private preschool operators as well.
Ms. Mallek asked if the program at Cale Elementary will stop. Mr. Elliott said Ms. Ralston is
looking at ways to continue those services with existing staff. Ms. Ralston explained that most likely they
will have to decrease some services to Bright Stars alumni in order to cover the Bright Stars classroom
children. She said if these children age out to Jack Jouett, Burley and W alton, because the children are
at high risk, there are family support workers in those middle schools. There is the potential that a case
could be transitioned and kept going in those schools.
Mr. Rooker asked if follow-up testing continues. Ms. Ralston said it continues with the schools.
There will be a report in the near future on the first graduates of the Bright Stars class; they will be
graduating this year. To return to the question about how much money the County puts into the Social
Services Department, she said the Board is not alone in asking this question. A study done by the
Virginia League of Social Service Executives a couple of years ago indicated that localities throughout the
State contribute about $89.0 million a year.
Ms. Thomas asked about the three frozen positions in Social Services, which is more than in
other departments. She is concerned and thinks the Board should consider unfreezing one of them to get
started in the training necessary. There are going to be five vacant positions by those retiring this year.
March 2, 2009 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 18)
Mr. Slutzky asked if any of the functions provided by the FTEs could be farmed out to contract
support for a year or two. Ms. Ralston said the two office assistant positions could be filled by temporary
positions that are not subject to benefits.
Mr. Rooker said employees in other departments could be moved around, but the situation in
Social Service does not present that opportunity. He asked if there is any way for her to use volunteers.
Ms. Ralston said that years ago there were volunteer coordinators in local DSS’s, but those have gone by
the wayside because of funding cuts.
Mr. Rooker said he has heard that the President’s stimulus plan is making money available to
AmeriCorps, so it is something that might be looked at for help.
Mr. Slutzky suggested to Mr. Tucker that two placeholders be put on the list – 1) examining the
issue of unfreezing a position in the Social Services Department and 2) providing an additional
contingency for farming out services to third parties if there is a dramatic increase in demand for those
services.
Mr. Rooker acknowledged that the Albemarle DSS received the Senate Productivity Award a
couple of years ago - competing against private enterprise and public enterprises – as one of the best-run
organizations in the State.
(At 4:20 p.m. the Board took a recess, and reconvened at 4:31 p.m.)
Mr. Elliott reported that under the Comprehensive Services Act, the proposed transfer is slated
to go up $74,300. There was a change in the formula in January of this year so localities will pay a
greater percentage of the cost for children in congregate care and a lesser cost if they can be kept in the
community. A year ago, the proposed increase was $144,000, and this year it is proposed to increase
$74,300. Despite the increase the State is proposing on localities for cost of congregate care, the
Albemarle DSS and CSA have been proactive in keeping children in the community so will be taking
advantage of the lower costs. The increase is attributable to the aging CSA population. Children are
entering the system later in life and remaining until they are 18 if they are eligible to continue receiving
services. The County continues to be impacted by unregulated vendor rates since the State has no cap
on those rates. There was a possibility the General Assembly was going to increase the match rates, but
they may be held the same as they were in January, 2009; staff is not certain what they will be since the
State budget was just passed Saturday.
Mr. Elliott reported that there is an increase in Human Development agencies (pages 143 to
147); for some reason the Tax Relief for the Elderly and Disabled Program is included in this area.
Some agencies listed in this section will show significant percentage changes because of two changes.
The dental program that was previously funded by the Health Department is being transferred to the
Free Clinic. In addition, the Jefferson Area CHIP has formed its own 501(c)(3) so funding from the
Health Department and MACAA will be going to that agency and will show as an increase while there will
be a corresponding decrease in the other agencies. For all of the other agencies reviewed by the Child &
Family/Albemarle Budget Review Team, funding remains relatively flat. If the agency scored exemplary
or solid there were held harmless, if they scored as adequate they received a three-percent reduction,
and those scoring poor were not recommended for funding in FY ‘10. Thirty agencies sought funding
under Human Development, but five were unfunded including the African-American Teaching Fellows,
Best Buddies of Virginia, Big Brothers/Big Sisters, FOCUS Teen site and the Quality Community Council.
Mr. Elliott said that last W ednesday JABA requested a 1.2 percent increase (which is a minimal
$3,345 increase), but staff is recommending level funding in order to be equitable since all agencies were
told the County would not be in a position to increase funding. JAUNT’s original request was $234,000
greater than in FY ’09. The increase included a two-percent merit increase, fuel budgeted at $3.69, and
new initiatives including routes to NGIC, shuttle service to Crozet, and several system-wide initiatives
such as additional drivers, expanded marketing, uniforms and a second assistant director position. He
said JAUNT revised that increase down to $150,950 – a 21 percent increase – which would essentially
cover the expected reduction in State funds of almost $98,000. They also factored in a baseline increase
for the County at $63,000, with the level of passengers anticipated for FY ‘10 being only 1,000 more than
FY ‘09.
Ms. Thomas said the Board puts aside money in capital each year for the State’s Revenue
Sharing Program. Is VDOT continuing that program? Mr. Tucker said it his understanding that they will
not be continuing it next year.
Ms. Thomas said if that is the case there is no need for the Board to put money aside for a
program that will have no activity. She said it is transportation money so has some relationship to
whether rural roads are paved or the Board provides a job service. Mr. Tucker said that money has
already been taken out of the budget.
Mr. Boyd said the other issue is what the County would do if the State reinstated that program. If
it were a four or five year decision, that would make it easier to shift the money.
Ms. Thomas asked that this idea be put on the list for review later in these work sessions.
Mr. Dorrier asked that staff look at a suggestion made last week that there be a doubling of fares
for JAUNT and also ridership in the Esmont area. There is a problem down there. Mr. Elliott said if the
$150,000+ is addressed, there would be no reduction in routes or services.
March 2, 2009 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 19)
Mr. Rooker added that he wants to make sure the County is not subsidizing JAUNT routes into
Buckingham County and other places in the outlying areas, which might be long, unprofitable routes.
Mr. Slutzky said it is important to understand that to the extent they talked about doubling the
fares for some users and eliminating service on certain days, it is a function of the constraints on what
they are allowed to do. They would only be able to do that on some routes.
__________
Parks, Recreation and Culture
Mr. Elliott reported that the total proposed allocation for Parks, Recreation and Culture is $6.4
million – an increase of $80,154 over the current fiscal year – and this area includes Libraries, which
constitute about 50 percent of total expenditures; Parks and Recreation totaling 35 percent; and agency
contributions totaling about 13 percent. He said the budget for the Parks and Recreation Department is
down about $70,000, and there is one frozen position for a parks foreman as well as a reduction in part-
time wages for seasonal assistants particularly in the summertime, the summer swim program and some
recreational classes. There are increases associated with park maintenance costs and some vendor
contracts - contracts related to refuse removal, temporary toilets in some parks, and an 11 percent
increase to the City for the therapeutic recreation program. He also reported that the General Fund
increase for the Darden Towe Park is $4,180 while the overall expenditures are just under $6,300 – as
vendor contracts have increased along with the number of employees using the County’s health/dental
insurance.
Mr. Rooker mentioned that there has been a discussion about equalizing the charges for City and
County residents at the facilities of each, as there is currently a disparity based on residence. Mr. Pat
Mullaney, Director of Parks and Recreation, explained that the City has an acting director and will
probably not hire a new director until May, so there has been discussion awaiting the new director. One
thing discussed earlier was that some senior golfers requested equal fees for City and County residents.
The City golf is an enterprise fund which pays for itself. There were discussions about City golf fees
versus County beach fees but it has not been discussed with the acting director.
Mr. Rooker said he had four or five constituents ask why County residents are charged more than
City residents and vice versa. If the County shares Darden Towe Park and other facilities, he thinks it
should share in equal rates. Mr. Mullaney said since the golf facility is an enterprise, the County would
need to agree to cover expenses if fees collected were not sufficient to cover the expense.
Ms. Mallek asked if the County would be subsidizing the golf course. Mr. Mullaney said “no.” The
Meadow Creek golf course is a self-sustaining activity and they did not want to give non-residents the
same fee as City residents for fear it would reduce overall revenues and they would not break even
anymore. Mr. Tucker said the County might have to help cover expenses if there were equal fees and
costs were not covered.
Mr. Rooker said the same thing could be said for the County’s lakes. Mr. Tucker agreed, stating
that the conversation is related to a quid pro quo for golf fees versus lake fees.
Mr. Elliott said the Visitors’ Bureau is slated to increase $161,000 – or 30 percent – just over
$707,000. The funding formula for the Visitors’ Bureau includes a portion of the transit occupancy tax.
This is a lag year so the revenues associated with this were collected in years past; he noted that an
artificial bump was created from a property that hadn’t been collected on, so this will likely go down next
year as a result as well as the economic slowdown. He said the Regional Library System is level
funded at $3.17 million; they indicated that at level funding hours might have to be reduced on Sundays at
the Northside Library or another branch.
Mr. Boyd asked if salary increases were being given to library staff this year. Mr. Elliott said “no.”
Mr. Tucker said the Library is on the City’s pay plan and the City is not giving salary increases to general
employees.
Mr. Elliott reported that in terms of recreational and cultural agencies, 18 agencies sought funding
from the County this year, but five are not recommended primarily because they were new applicants; all
others were level funded. He said Save the Fireworks did not submit a funding application on time and
thus were not recommended for funding.
Mr. Slutzky asked why WHTJ was not considered. Ms. Vinzant said they did not submit an
application this year.
__________
Community Development
Mr. Foley reported that Community Development comprises about $7.5 million, or three-plus
percent of the General Fund operating budget. He said 66 percent of that is in the department itself – it
has gone down about $328,000. In Community Development and Inspections combined there are 7.5
frozen positions now reflecting a significant reduction in development activity; revenues are expected to
decrease by about $670,000 or 43 percent. There have been significant reallocations of staff which is
appropriate given the significant workload reductions.
Mr. Foley said operating costs are decreasing by about 30 percent, and the Community
Development part of the budget – excluding Inspections – continues 2.5 frozen positions from FY ‘08, and
March 2, 2009 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 20)
three frozen positions from FY ‘09; there is a $40,000 reduction in master planning expenses but the
master plans that are underway and expect to be completed in the next fiscal year are fully funded. He
said the other part of the reduction in operating expenses is the elimination of expansion of the
Groundwater Monitoring Program; there are three or four wells in place now that continue to be
monitored but new ones will not be drilled; assessment of groundwater continues.
Ms. Thomas mentioned that volunteers can be trained for the type of well monitoring being done
now. Mr. Foley said there is one position assigned to groundwater and that position is being continued.
Mr. Rooker said there was also the question of whether or not existing wells could be used for
some of the testing.
Mr. Foley said one planner position was unfrozen in FY ‘09 as a result of the fee increases
approved by the Board. He confirmed that both inspections and plan reviews are down dramatically so
staff will continue to look at the workload between departments. There is a 9.1 percent decrease in local
revenue – or $52,000 in fees. In Community Development one GIS planner has been moved to the
Finance Department to assist with their work. In the Inspections Department there is a $61,000 increase
overall – or 5.8 percent - which reflects the one position filled because of the fee increases.
Ms. Mallek asked if this person is cross-trained to do roadway inspections so bonds can be
released. Mr. Foley said “yes.” In fact, inspectors have been cross-trained to do different jobs throughout
as a part of the downturn in the economy.
Ms. Thomas said that because banks are not renewing bonds, Mr. Graham told her that major
work will have to be done by either developers or the County; there is more activity than expected,
although it is a different type of activity.
Mr. Foley said two positions remain frozen from FY ’08. W hen the position that drove the cost up
is taken out there is a 22 percent decrease overall in operations. There are three inspectors who are
working part-time in the office of Facilities Development doing inspections for construction projects at
the County schools. Staff has talked about reallocating them to the revalidation process for the Land Use
Tax Program, as well as some of the assessment work needed to keep that process going in the future.
He said there is a $619,000 decrease – 64 percent in local revenue – related to Inspections.
Ms. Mallek asked if the contractors for the School projects hire an inspector as was done with the
last Airport project, or is inspection of the project left to County staff. Mr. Foley responded that there are
inspectors on staff, and the County also contracts out this work, but it would be a part of the contract
costs. The County is not contracting out now since employees with that background are being retained to
do that work. He said Inspections staff is also working on the Sign Program.
Mr. Elliott reported that the budget for the Office of Housing is slated to decrease by about
$38,800 due to the $40,000 reduction in the eight-year Woods Edge rental subsidy; and, in addition to
that, the Homebuyers’ Assistance funding is maintained at $250,000.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks the Board should consider whether the operation of the Homebuyer’s
Assistance Program could be contracted out. He suggested contacting CAAR (Charlottesville-Albemarle
Association of Realtors) to consider the most economical way to provide that program.
Ms. Thomas said the Resource Management consultants asked if the Piedmont Housing Alliance
and AHIP should be put together in that kind of program.
Mr. Slutzky said the recommendations of the Affordable Housing Task Force included an
ombudsman position that would centralize a number of these functions so they are all carried out at one
single place - there is a lot of redundancy both in the County’s budget and then outside among private
parties.
Mr. Boyd said it is also in the City’s budget.
Mr. Slutzky said UVA also has an office where they provide advice to employees, and it includes
people working in that category.
Mr. Rooker said this looks like an area where this service could be provided more economically.
Mr. Elliott reported that in terms of CTS, MACAA, Soil and Water Conservation and the
Virginia Extension Cooperative Service, there are changes. For the Extension Service there is a
$5,800 increase due to rent which is offset in the budget by revenue, a small increase to the County-
funded position for the Soil & W ater Conservation Service, and for MACAA, CHIP has moved to be a
501(C)3. He said 11 agencies sought funding under Community Development agencies, and nine are
recommended for level funding; the Community Design Center and the Southeast Rural Community
Association projects were not recommended for funding.
__________
Non-Departmental
For non-departmental items, Mr. Foley said the City/County Revenue Sharing Agreement
increased by 32.3 percent. The Transfer to the School Division has an operating decrease by one-half
of a percent or $536,000; the Superintendent’s requested budget is under-funded by $877,000 but they
March 2, 2009 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 21)
have taken into account the change in revenues and the School Board’s request incorporates what the
County budgeted. There is a significant increase in School Debt Service – just over 15.8 percent – the
second largest increase in the budget beyond Revenue Sharing, and a small 3.4 percent increase in
Capital.
Mr. Foley said on the General Government side for capital and debt, there has been a significant
increase in Debt Service for General Government projects at 44.0 percent or $854,000; the offsetting
significant decrease is in the amount transferred to Capital which is down about 90.0 percent or
$7,611,000. There is a significant decrease in the Stormwater Program in terms of the amount of
money transferred to that program, but most of that money is for future projects not yet planned; there is
enough balance in the Stormwater Fund to fund everything currently under construction or planned.
Mr. Slutzky asked if the General Fund transfer to Capital is more than three cents on the tax rate.
Mr. Foley said “yes” in fact it was roughly equivalent to 15 cents. He said $19.8 million is transferred from
the General Fund to Capital, and of that amount only $2.1 million will remain after paying Debt Service
because of the reductions; that will be mostly for maintenance, things that have to be done and for which
money cannot be borrowed.
Mr. Foley said the budget reflects a $100,000 Board Reserve. In the past that number has been
closer to $300,000. The Salary Reserve - which is for classifications that go on through the year - is
about $100,000 down from what it has been in the past. Also shown is the 2.5 cents on the tax rate
which is equivalent to $3.9 million for the Contingency in the budget. He pointed out the negative
number of $589,000 which is the amount in this budget for 15 additional frozen positions. He said it
shows as a negative number because it will appear in other sections of the budget as those vacancies
become available. It is an important item in balancing this budget. In addition, there is a one-time
amount shown for payout under the VERIP program.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 3. From the Board: Matters not listed on the Agenda. There were no other
matters presented.
________________
Agenda Item No. 4. Adjourn to March 3, 2009, 2:00 p.m. at CitySpace, for a Joint Meeting with
the Albemarle County Service Authority Board of Directors (ACSA), the Charlottesville City Council and
the Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority Board of Directors (RW SA).
There being no further business, at 5:09 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Boyd that the Board
adjourn this meeting to 2:00 p.m. at CitySpace for a joint meeting with the Albemarle County Service
Authority, the City of Charlottesville and the Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority Board of Directors
(RWSA). Mr. Rooker seconded the motion, which passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Mallek, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by the
Board of County
Supervisors
Date: 05/13/2009
Initials: EWJ