2013-03-04March 4, 2013 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 1)
An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
March 4, 2013, at 9:00 a.m., Room 241, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
This meeting was adjourned from February 25, 2013.
PRESENT: Mr. Kenneth C. Boyd, Mr. Christopher Dumler, Ms. Ann Mallek, Mr. Dennis S.
Rooker, Mr. Duane E. Snow and Mr. Rodney S. Thomas.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Thomas C. Foley, County Attorney, Larry W. Davis,
Clerk, Ella W. Jordan, Assistant County Executive, William Letteri, and Director of Budget and
Performance Management, Lori S. Allshouse
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:04 a.m., by the Chair, Ms. Mallek.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 2. Work Session: FY 2013/2014 Operating and Capital Budgets.
Overview
Mr. Boyd stated that, every year, the Board goes through this process where the departmental
information does not follow the same sequence as the book of material given to the Board. He asked if
staff could change it for next year so that it is in the same sequence. He also said that the comparisons
are done “budget to budget” instead of “actuals to budget”. By doing this, it changes what is presented,
noting that on page 31 in the budget summary, there is a $7 million increase in the referenced budget
when, in fact, there is a decrease of $12 million in actual to budget. He said there is quite a bit of
difference in how it is presented to everyone. Mr. Boyd added that he does not know how to fix the issue,
but did want to bring it to staff’s attention as it changes the way one looks at the budget.
Ms. Allshouse pointed out that the actuals in the budget include re-appropriation items too, so it
does get confusing when comparing it to the actual.
Mr. Foley commented that it would be simple to give an actual to proposed budget in a separate
sheet by summary.
Mr. Boyd said that it could also be included in the summary section.
Ms. Mallek commented that the actual for FY 2013 would not be included because the year has
not been completed. Mr. Foley said that was correct; staff would only have mid-year numbers.
Mr. Boyd commented that projections would be available.
Mr. Rooker mentioned that, in the budgets for the departments under the “Overview of Changes”
section, there are a number of items that do not contain explanations of things like increases in salaries –
as much as 8% or 9% in some cases.
Ms. Laura Vinzant, Senior Budget Analyst, said there was an anomaly this year, particularly
regarding salaries that Board members typically would not see. W hen the budget was adopted last year, it
was adopted with a one percent increase in salaries. After that, the Board added another 5% to salaries –
and that is reflected in every department. They are looking at the adopted budget not the revised budget
that included the 5%. She said that every section in the FY12-13 projected has an explanation of the 5%
salary change, but that is not shown in the adopted to recommended change number and percentage.
Ms. Vinzant added that, for the salaries in every department, there is closer to a 7% increase in salaries.
She emphasized that this is an unusual year because of the timing of those salary adjustments. All other
changes, whether the addition of a position or reclassification, should be included.
Mr. Boyd also commented that the tabs do not match the budget book. For example, there is no
section for “Community Services” or for all the categories listed under “Safety”.
In terms of Community Services, Mr. Foley explained that the reason for that is the way the
County is structured under the Assistant County Executives. One is “Operations” and the other is
“Community Services.” That is an organizational thing based on internal services versus external
services, which staff felt was a good way to organize. He added that staff will take this feedback and look
at continuous improvements as it moves forward.
Mr. Foley also pointed out that Mr. Letteri and Ms. Allshouse have done double work to cover both
sections.
_____
Mr. Letteri said that this is an opportunity to get more into the detail of the components of
revenues and expenditures, and to allow Board members the opportunity to ask questions and provide
feedback. Mr. Letteri explained that staff will keep track of all suggestions and come back to the Board
with a summary of what the changes might involve, and the affect on the final recommended budget.
Mr. Letteri then recognized the OMB staff: Ms. Lori Allshouse, Mr. Andy Bowman, Ms. Laura
Vinzant, and Ms. Lindsay Harris for their extremely hard work on the budget.
March 4, 2013 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 2)
Ms. Mallek commented that when she takes the proposed budget to meetings with other counties,
they are amazed by the detail. She said that she really appreciates all of staff’s hard work.
Mr. Letteri also recognized the department heads and staff in attendance.
Mr. Letteri reported that this year’s budget remains focused on One Organization committed
excellence. Even as times are changing, staff is focused on high performance and organizational
excellence. The staff is also focused on making capital strategic investments to ensure that even modest
steps help advance the County’s strategic priorities. He also said that the budget focuses on the future, by
repositioning to meet tomorrow’s challenges. Mr. Letteri stated that there is a sense that the County is
coming out of the recession, with economic activities beginning to pick up and evidence that there are
better times ahead – but this only assumes modest steps, while keeping the tax bills relatively flat.
Mr. Letteri said that, in contrast to last year’s initial cautious steps of progress through catch up
and recovery, this year’s focus is on “build, invest and advance” with the idea of building resilience and
supporting the County’s ability to respond to change while sustaining core operations. Examples include
stepping up fire and rescue positions and the ability to respond to emergency medical services. He said
they are also shoring up some operational departments, including support of the new parks, fire stations
and libraries.
Mr. Letteri said that the budget invests in creating organizational capacity that yields a positive
return, improving ability to perform and produce over the long term . Examples include investing in
economic development and creating jobs through capital investments that help generate economic
activity. The budget invests in an Information Technology (IT) position to further leverage sophisticated
tools and take advantage of additional opportunities that enable the staff to do a more efficient and
effective job.
Mr. Letteri said that the last goal is to advance strategies that the Board has developed, with
seven principal goals established in the last year. Staff believes that this budget takes modest but
meaningful steps forward in advancing those goals. He said that examples include adding safety officers
at schools and putting more resources in libraries.
Mr. Letteri then reviewed the budget calendar, stating that later in the week staff will discuss the
capital fund and conclude with any additional discussion on operations. On March 11th, the School
Division will be presenting its operating budget.
Mr. Rooker asked if the Board will be receiving a copy of the School Board’s budget in a book.
Ms. Mallek responded that Board members did receive the proposed budget, and another copy would only
be necessary if there were changes.
Mr. Snow asked if the School Division received any additional money from the State. Ms.
Allshouse responded that she does not think anything has been changed from the proposed budget.
Mr. Boyd asked if the School Board has approved the Superintendent’s budget. Ms. Mallek
responded that it had.
Mr. Letteri said that if there were changes in federal revenues, it would impact that budget.
Mr. Foley said staff would try to get more information for the March 11th meeting.
Mr. Letteri commented that, at the conclusion of the discussion on March 11th, the Board can
make any adjustments and changes to the proposed budget. Staff will then come back to the Board so it
can reach a consensus on any changes. Staff has also set aside March 13th as another date for
discussion, if needed. The public hearing on the Board’s recommended budget is scheduled for March
27th with final adoption slated for April 3, 2013.
_____
General Fund Revenues and Expenditures
Ms. Allshouse addressed the Board, stating that she would concentrate on the General Fund for
today’s meeting. She said 86% of the General Fund comes from local revenues. She reported that
general property taxes – including vehicles, machinery and tools – comprise about 63%; other local taxes
are at about 20.5% which is where one would find economic improvements in sales tax and includes food
and beverage taxes, BPOL, etc.; state revenues comprise about 10%, which has remained fairly flat; and
federal revenues are less than 2%. Ms. Allshouse noted that staff will be talking about transfers and use
of fund balance also.
Ms. Allshouse presented General Fund revenues in dollar amounts, including the increases and
changes, and pointed out the local revenues and FY13 adopted budget as well as the recommended
budget for FY14. She stated that the general property taxes have increased by about $2.6 million, a 1.9%
increase, and other local taxes have increased 3.5%. Ms. Allshouse noted that there was a slight
decrease in other local revenues, due to the Office of Facilities Development moving out of the General
Fund area and the resulting net change. She confirmed that Parks & Recreation fees, EMS fees, and
other fees such as inspections are all in that category. Ms. Allshouse said that state revenues remain flat
in FY14, and the 9.8% increase in federal revenues is due to a formula change in how the County is
funded for Social Services. She noted that grant funding goes into a special revenue fund, but there are a
few renewable, yearly grants that go in the General Fund.
March 4, 2013 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 3)
Mr. Boyd commented that when the County is awarded grants, those funds are applied to the
expense side but thought those funds should be put into the budget somewhere even if it’s just called
“grants.”
Mr. Foley pointed out that when one looks at the total budget amounting to $321 million, that
includes all of the funds.
Ms. Allshouse reiterated that grant monies transfer in if it is an on-going grant, but some of the
newer discretionary grants – and even the FEMA grant – don’t go into the fund.
Ms. Mallek said that method keeps the Board from thinking there is more money than they really
do, and she likes it to remain in a separate fund until the time comes to spend it, because then it’s not
elevating the rest of the revenue pot.
Mr. Rooker said the only difference is grant monies are not under the General Fund, as that fund
anticipates recurring revenue sources. Mr. Foley said that is correct.
Mr. Boyd noted that he had that complaint with the School’s budget for years, as grant money
didn’t show up on the expense side and implied a self-sustaining source.
Mr. Foley said that staff has discussed this at length this year and, in their presentation, staff has
added special revenue funds so that the full picture is realized, i.e., the $1 million federal grant for
firefighters. He emphasized that the $321 million proposed budget includes everything the County is
going to spend this year.
Mr. Boyd commented that the school budget may not reflect the potential impact of sequestration,
but there will definitely be an impact on the revenues the Schools will receive.
Ms. Allshouse reported that the FY 14 budget is based on the current real estate tax rate, noting
that there was a 2.3% decline overall in 2013 total taxable assessed values. She stated that the County
has two calendar years in each fiscal year, so staff looked at the FY13 assessment and have also made a
projection on how FY14 is going to go. Ms. Allshouse noted that staff is still anticipating a slight decrease
in 2014, but believes that will be the bottoming out of the market. Since the recession, she said, real
estate revenues decreased 12% over about five years.
Mr. Thomas noted that the Rio District had an increase in 2013, and is the only district that
actually increased.
Ms. Allshouse reported that the decline in reassessments were offset by a slight increas e in real
estate revenues because of new taxable land divisions, developments, and construction as well as a
change in land use deferral. She explained that one cent on the real estate tax rate equals $1.5 million,
and the assessor has indicated that an equalized effective tax rate would be 78 cents.
Ms. Allshouse said that changes in assessment were very uneven across categories, with
residential declining 2.66% overall, multi-family (apartments) increasing 3.65%, commercial and industrial
increasing 2.41%, and rural and agricultural property decreasing 5.24% on average.
On the expenditure side, Ms. Allshouse reported, the General Fund has about $228 million with
41% as transfer to Schools, 8% transferring to Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and debt, and 71% of
the CIP and debt number going to Schools as well. She noted that, overall; the amount going to Schools
is about 51% of the General Fund. Ms. Allshouse reported that Public Safety comprises about 16% of the
budget, revenue sharing is 7%, and the others are smaller percentages.
Ms. Allshouse presented a chart showing the revenue side, based on the changes that occurred
from the adopted FY13 budget, with Public Safety increasing by $1.79 million which is the largest increase
on the General Government operations side. Ms. Allshouse said there was a slight decrease in Public
W orks, mostly due to moving the Office of Facilities Development (OFD) off of the General Fund to an
internal services category.
Mr. Letteri noted that figure also reflects a change with stormwater coming out of the General
Fund.
Ms. Allshouse said the subtotal for General Government operations increase is $2.81 million, and
City revenue-sharing is decreasing almost $600,000 in FY14 with the transfer to Schools increasing $2.62
million, or 2.6%. She said that the bottom line was an increase of about $6 million, and about $5 million of
that represents increases in Public Safety, increases to Schools, and increases to capital.
Mr. Foley added that the ‘entire pie’ is up 2.3% or $7.2 million, so this is a large percentage of that
with some of the special revenue funds increasing as mentioned earlier.
_____
Non-Departmental
Transfers, Reserves
Ms. Allshouse reported that the Non-Departmental category is where most of the expenditures
actually occur in this budget, representing $141 million, and this is where a lot of money moves from the
General Fund to some other areas. She said City revenue-sharing is decreasing by $600,000, as the
March 4, 2013 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 4)
formula has a lag factor of several years based on the County’s revenues. Ms. Allshouse reiterated that
the School Division increases 2.6% or $2.6 million, based on the County’s 60/40 transfer policy. She also
noted that the School Board request is still unfunded by $1.4 million. She stated that the transfer to debt
and capital has increased by almost $500,000, or 2.7%, in the FY14 budget.
Mr. Boyd said he was reminded in reading a book the previous evening about vehicle and
equipment replacements and, as the County considers the issue of bus replacements, he asked about
adding the $3.50 fee to the School System’s budget to create those reserves.
Ms. Allshouse said that the $3.50 fee is designated for those larger public service vehicles and
apparatus which would be in capital and has to do with the dollar amount.
Mr. Foley said the County could add a fee, however, it would essentially be shifting that cost back
to the School operating budget. He emphasized that the County does replace some major apparatus in
the CIP without a charge on the fuel, but the typical operating ongoing replacements come out of the
vehicle replacement fund. Mr. Foley explained that there are two matters – capital and large items, and
the operating formula – so since the Board perceived the school buses as a large item, it approved
moving those to the CIP. He said that fire engines are not replaced with a fuel charge; they are in the CIP
because the cost is so large; whereas a police vehicle every year replaced at $26,000 would come out of
the fuel charge and is in the department budget as an expense.
Mr. Boyd commented that, even if it wasn’t charged back to the School System, it seems like a
very good way of accounting for it, because then there would be some operating cost involved with
replacing the vehicles. Mr. Foley responded that there is a certain amount of the tax rate every year that
automatically goes to Capital, so it is an ongoing expense and is charged off to Capital every year before
new projects are assumed.
Mr. Rooker said that police vehicles are not in the CIP. Ms. Allshouse confirmed that most police
cars and smaller vehicles under $30,000 are in the General Fund. Mr. Rooker said that is the difference;
that is the distinction.
Mr. Boyd asked if the transfer for vehicle replacement was a transfer to a special fund and not to
the CIP. Mr. Foley replied that those vehicles are considered non-capital expenses.
Ms. Allshouse said staff has increased the use of one-time funding in the Non-departmental
category, and includes $250,000 for the Economic Development fund and $100,000 for the Grants
Leveraging Fund which is just about depleted now but noted that grants have brought in about $2 million
overall. She stated that the Innovation Fund and Intern Fund are two new ideas for the FY14 budget, and
are funded at $166,500. She explained that staff was, at one time, able to put aside a salary increase in
the budget for one-time performance bonus monies for three years in the five-year plan; but since staff
was able to move to a market merit increase in the FY14 budget, the one-time money could be used for
the Intern Fund and an Innovation Fund. Ms. Allshouse explained that the Innovation Fund would be used
to support organizational innovation, but projects would be carefully managed prior to funding. For the
Intern Fund, she said the County uses a lot of interns in the organization and a lot come from the
University of Virginia through the UIP program but the Intern Fund is a little different and be used for
recent college graduates who are interested in learning about government work full-time for one year.
Mr. Boyd wondered how much new money would be used for the Intern Fund stating his
calculations show there would only need to be about $5,750 because of the $74,250 left over in salary
reserves.
Ms. Allshouse reported that, for the first time, staff recommends putting $100,000 into a fuel
contingency to account for fluctuations in gas prices.
Mr. Snow asked what fuel rate the County builds its budget on. Ms. Allshouse responded that the
County doesn’t pay state and federal taxes on the fuel so, if taxes were added in, the amount would be
$3.25 but without those taxes it’s about $2.80, which is what the County pays.
Mr. Foley stated that staff could build in contingencies in every department or pull that out
separately and estimate, but what staff has done in this budget is put it into one separate place which is a
good management practice.
Ms. Allshouse explained that there is $50,000 in the Non-departmental budget and is
recommended for employee training. She stated that, while there is training in each department, this
covers organization-wide training or County training for transition. She also said that the $80,000 salary
reserve is for employees who are working at a higher level and might get reclassified.
Mr. Boyd asked if salary reserve has been the same amount every year. Ms. Allshouse
responded that those funds have fluctuated and are slightly higher than last year’s amount.
Mr. Boyd asked if the County was doing a major adjustment on police salaries this year. Mr. Foley
confirmed that was done last year, with that reserve at about $200,000, but the FY14 number is more of a
typical department reclassification number.
Ms. Allshouse reported that there is a very small increase, comparatively to others, of 4.5% in
early retirement and that amount is based on estimates from the Human Resources Department as to
what will be needed in FY14.
March 4, 2013 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 5)
Mr. Boyd asked when that item is to be phased out. Mr. Foley responded that the County is going
into the second year of a five-year phase-out.
Ms. Allshouse stated that the other contingency for Board consideration is for the Mountainside
facility in Crozet and, in the past, the County has been able to provide this funding to ensure that lower-
income people can remain at the facility.
Ms. Mallek commented that this is the auxiliary grant money that pays to allow people who were
employed in Albemarle County to have a place to live.
Mr. Rooker responded that it’s not just former County employees.
Ms. Mallek said that it’s people who worked here in the County, and it’s moved out of where it
used to be into this fund. She stated that this share is not paid for people from outside of the County, such
as former City residents.
Mr. Foley said that there had been a thorough evaluation between the City and the County, so
there was a joint community effort on Mountainside. He added that Mountainside is not the only facility
that provides these services and, because of the interpretation by Social Services, there is a change that
had to be brought forth. Staff set this matter aside so the Board could consider it.
Mr. Boyd asked why this particular request for funds is being considered in a special category.
Mr. Foley responded that there is a change in interpretation in the use of auxiliary grants.
Ms. Mallek added that it doesn’t fit in the Agency Budget Review Team (ABRT) process, and is a
federal matter.
Mr. Rooker clarified that it’s analogous to what has been spent in prior years, and is being pulled
out to be considered separately.
Mr. Foley reiterated that staff felt it important enough to have Ms. Ralston and other County staff
speak to it as a separate discussion item.
Ms. Allshouse said the last item is $250,000 in reserve for contingencies, which is the same
amount in the current County budget, and is set aside for unexpected things that occur throughout the
year.
_____
Cross Departmental
Regarding changes in items across departments, Ms. Allshouse stated that the change in Virginia
Retirement Services (VRS) was done mid-year and, therefore, not reflected in the FY13 budget when they
started out; 2% of salary increase is in each department’s budget, and the other portion of the
performance increase is held elsewhere and will be spread as the performance reviews are done. This
amount is determined by where raises are that are higher than 2%. She also said that staff is budgeting
for salary lapse at about $500,000 which is essentially budgeting for attrition.
Mr. Boyd noted that the Schools do not seem to account for attrition as much as Local
Government, even though that area has about three times the number of employees.
Mr. Foley said the School Division increased it in their proposed budget for the first time, and that
would be a good question to ask them as far as what percentage it is of their payroll.
Ms. Allshouse reported that, across all departments, there is an increase of health insurance
costs of 7%, a slight decrease in the VRS group life insurance rate, and funding for the mandated Line of
Duty Act (LODA) obligation which is approximately $200,000 and is spread between the affected
departments.
Mr. Boyd said he thought the LODA expense was about $500,000. Ms. Allshouse responded that
the cost is about $200,000 in the current year, and that cost is being held in FY14 but this is an area that
would likely increase.
Mr. Foley said that what Mr. Boyd may be remembering was the estimated cost of doing self-
insurance, and staff felt the VaCorp plan was the better option, with most Virginia localities choosing the
same.
Mr. Rooker asked about the Innovation Fund process and how that would work. Mr. Foley
explained that a proposal would either come back for full approval, or a Board member would sit on the
approval committee for recommendation.
Ms. Allshouse reported that there is also an increase in departments for core training, as this is an
area that was significantly decreased during the recession, and it is staff’s desire to at least get employees
back to their core training levels. She said that computer maintenance and replacements increased 7.9%,
or $19,000. Ms. Allshouse stated that insurance was decreasing $109,968 across departments, and this
insurance savings was realized by using VaCorp for workman’s compensation. She said some of these
savings could be used to fund the Risk Manager position which will be discussed a little later in the
budget.
March 4, 2013 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 6)
Ms. Allshouse stated that the vehicle replacement surcharge has been increased from $3.00 to
$3.50, and staff is also recommending the addition of one-time funding of about $200,000 for vehicle
replacements. She said the surcharge will help replace 38 of the 58 vehicles requested for replacement,
adding that the County is still not back to the replacement level pre-recession. She stated that 30 of the
38 vehicles are public safety vehicles.
Mr. Rooker asked what the mileage criteria is for replacement vehicles. Mr. Andy Bowman
responded that staff looked through a host of objective criteria including age, mileage, condition,
maintenance cost, etc., with public safety vehicles getting more use than Social Services vehicles. He
said that the standard the County has used, based on what other localities typically plan for, is about
120,000 miles or 10 years, whichever comes first, and is used as a planning guide over the long term, with
individual vehicle decisions made on a year-to-year basis based on those criteria.
Mr. Boyd commented that he thought the emergency services and volunteer firemen were looking
at revising their mileage and vehicle replacement schedule last year. Mr. Bowman responded that their
schedule only applies to large apparatus.
Chief Dan Eggleston explained that their adjustments were based on large apparatus in terms of
what goes into the CIP, and the lifespan is extended out to 20 years on most large apparatus. He added
that didn’t apply to small apparatus, although staff uses the same criteria in looking at replacing smaller
apparatus such as trucks and SUVs.
Ms. Allshouse stated that this budget also provides details on vehicle fuel budgeted at $2.89 per
gallon, with state and federal gas taxes waived, and would normally total 47 cents a gallon.
Mr. Dumler asked if that was primarily reimbursements for onsite fill-ups, and if there is a set-price
contract. Ms. Allshouse replied that staff would have to bring that answer back to him.
Mr. Letteri reported that the cross-departmental expenditures already discussed would apply to a
lot of the subject areas he would be talking about, with the first category being internal operations which
are those departments that run the business of the County. He stated those departments include the
County Executive’s Office, the County Attorney’s Office, Finance, the Office of Management and Budget,
Information Technology, and Human Resources. Collectively, he said, the category totals $11.5 million in
the budget and represents an increase of $308,000 or about 2.7% overall. Mr. Letteri reported that the
Board of Supervisors category increases $23,000 overall in FY14, or about 4%, but there is one decrease
in this department of $10,000 associated with the audit, because the County is now producing its own
Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) in-house. He noted that staff is in the process of going
out with an RFP for audit services and he hopes to see that change reflected in future pricing.
Ms. Mallek asked if the audit cost would move from the Board of Supervisors to the Finance
Department.
Mr. Letteri explained that there are some additional costs in Finance whereby staff would engage
a professional to help establish the audit process, but those expenses will eventually go away.
Mr. Rooker said that this had been looked at by the Audit Committee.
Mr. Foley said staff is budgeting based on the assumption that the audit cost would go down, and
would shift over for staff to do the CAFR.
Mr. Boyd asked if part of that cost decrease is because of technology associated with Access
Albemarle, adding that he has mentioned to Farmer, Robinson & Cox that there should be a reduction
because of the new system taking over the fixed asset system. Mr. Letteri responded that the quality of
the records and the ability to summarize data and move it into a CAFR report is so much improved.
Mr. Rooker added that the County is able to produce reports in a much more timely manner now,
adding that the County did not receive a management letter for the first time ever with the last audit. He
said that the process, in the past has been a bit of a ‘fire drill’ to try to get everything done in time, and now
he is seeing that ‘fire drill’ approach disappearing which is a good thing. Mr. Boyd said he likes receiving
quarterly reports in the CAFR now and the format is very helpful.
Mr. Letteri stated that there have been increases associated with travel, training, and education
based on policy changes there; an increase in Thomas Jefferson Partnership for Economic Development
(TJPED) membership fees which are based on the new cost allocation; and increases in revenues from
Economic Development Authority (EDA) which will more than offset those additional costs. He said that,
overall, net additions to the Supervisors category total about $22,000 or 4%.
Mr. Boyd mentioned that there is a banking term called ‘asset matching,’ which tries to relate cost
with revenues, and this seems to be an area that staff ought to be looking at through the lens of return on
investment. He added that it may not all be monetary, but there should be some indication of a return on
the County’s investment.
Mr. Foley stated that the ‘return on investment’ principle is something staff is always looking for in
the budget, and particularly with TJPED, Albemarle is trying to catch up with the other regions in terms of
what they put into it. He said that TJPED is doing some real tracking now on inquiries that have come in,
how much more activity they’re doing because of what they’re doing and what’s being invested. He
March 4, 2013 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 7)
emphasized that some of this may not be as quantifiable, but there is certainly some benefit that can be
shown.
Ms. Mallek said that agencies should be tasked with providing that type of information, and staff
doesn’t need to spend its time doing that.
Mr. Boyd said that’s one example, but there are others that have brought great returns such as
improved tax collection, stating that was a small investment with a big return.
_____
Administration
Board of Supervisors
County Executive
Human Resources
County Attorney
Finance
Office of Management and Budget
Information Technology
Voter Registration & Elections
Mr. Letteri reported that the County Executive section of the budget includes management
oversight of staff, and some of the goals include implementation of a comprehensive communications
strategy, increased staff development and capacity, and providing exceptional leadership. He said,
overall, this category increases in FY14 by $188,000 primarily due to staff salary increases and the
reallocation of an Organizational Development Manager from the Department of Human Resources.
Ms. Mallek said that’s basically adding someone in communications.
Mr. Foley stated that they moved the Organizational Development Manager, who handled the
training program in Human Resources (HR), to the County Executive’s Office in an effort to focus on a
much broader array of responsibilities such as training and engaging the workforce as well as generating
ideas. He said all the ‘commitment to excellence’ efforts which have been identified in the organization
include the training and professional development of County staff. He added that succession manage-
ment has become a greater focus, for example, so that position was moved from an expense in HR to an
expense in County Executive and will broaden the scope and responsibility that will move the County
forward with Baldridge efforts and other types of performance improvements.
Mr. Boyd commented that the 7% increase in health insurance costs seems a bit misleading to
him, and it would be good to know how much that represents in dollars. Mr. Letteri responded that it’s a
7% increase in premium costs, and Ms. Allshouse said staff would provide a dollar figure to the Board.
Mr. Foley said employees had some questions about that as well but, essentially, a single-
coverage premium went from $38 to $43, with family coverage running more and a larger share on the
employer side.
Mr. Letteri stated he would be talking briefly about that issue in the Human Resources section of
the budget with a more in depth discussion at the School Board joint session on Wednesday. He said that
economic development is also a function that exists in the Executive’s Office, and they have proposed a
$50,000 placeholder in the FY14 budget to engage someone to assist with the economic development
efforts in that area.
Mr. Snow asked if that position would help implement the plan that was just developed. Mr. Foley
responded that the next phase of the Action Plan has not been developed yet; it will be developed through
engagement with the Board and the community. He added that, in August, the County would be coming to
the end of the three-year Economic Vitality Action Plan.
Mr. Snow asked if the $50,000 would go toward someone hired to help implement the plan. Mr.
Foley said he thinks that’s what makes the most sense, but the County has a roundtable scheduled with
the business community and the environmental community and would come back to the Board with those
results to determine if a new position is the answer or whether another investment makes sense. He
confirmed that it would be for a half a year in the next fiscal year.
Mr. Rooker emphasized that, right now, it’s a placeholder.
_____
Mr. Letteri reported that the Department of Human Resources budget actually decreases by
$29,000 or 4.3%, and this budget item is the General Fund’s contribution to the department which is really
a School department and reflects General Government’s share of the work that goes on there. He said
that this Department has developed a client-based model that allows more focus on the different areas of
government, both on the Local Government and School side, to allow a team of people who are much
more responsive to needs. Mr. Letteri said that the decrease is due largely to the reallocation of the
position that moved over to the County Executive’s Office.
Mr. Boyd commented that this item is a little misleading to the public, because it shows one
position and a $205,000 expenditure. Ms. Mallek said that’s why she asked about the other costs of the
program.
March 4, 2013 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 8)
Mr. Letteri said that some of the HR initiatives reflect increasing tuition assistance to employees,
and there is an increase of $13,500 for that program. He reported that the health care area and
adjustments to the health insurance program would be discussed at length on Wednesday with the School
Board. He said the Healthcare Executive Committee has met and has made some recommendations and
there are some options in terms of premiums when compared to market, and whether or not the notion of
incorporating deductibles should be introduced. He said Ms. Gerome will discuss this with the Board and
will include comments and feedback from focus groups regarding this issue.
_____
Mr. Letteri reported on the County Attorney’s Office category stating that the only real changes in
this area result from the 5% VRS change and the 2% merit increase. He said that the Office represents
both Local Government and Schools, and has quite a workload for their eight member staff. He said
County Attorney staff have developed a level of expertise that allows them to handle a lot of litigation in-
house.
Mr. Rooker asked how the School contribution is reflected. Mr. Davis responded that there is no
allocation to Schools and, when they looked at that issue a few years ago, it was determined that the cost
benefit to the Schools was in excess of $200,000 if they were to establish their own in-house attorney and
staff it, so there are great efficiencies in the way this is done.
Mr. Boyd commented that there are times when outside counsel must be used, and there is no
expense in this budget for that. Mr. Davis responded that his office does not budget for outside counsel
because they are used so rarely and, over the last three years, the County has only used it once for a very
minor issue. He said that outside counsel is only needed when there is a conflict, or for a very specialized
area of law.
Mr. Boyd said that, in a lot of cases the Board sees, the insurance company brings in outside
counsel to handle it. Mr. Foley said the County’s premiums cover the cost.
Mr. Rooker asked how often a conflict occurs. Mr. Davis said those instances are very rare. Mr.
Foley added that there is no charge to Schools for services provided by the County Attorney’s Office or by
the Finance Department.
Ms. Mallek commented that having someone like Chris Brown from that office is a huge benefit for
the County and the families, because sometimes Schools get caught in the middle of family
disagreements, and it’s very important to have someone who can deal with the attorneys on both sides
and sort things out for the benefit of the kids.
_____
Mr. Letteri reported that the Department of Finance also serves both Schools and Local
Government and, overall, the department is increasing by $88,000 or 1.9%. He said this increase reflects
the addition of a half-year Risk Management position, which is a critical function. Currently, these issues
are managed in a somewhat decentralized manner. This position will enable the County, in a much more
comprehensive and methodical way, manage its risk hopefully toward the notion of mitigation and
decreasing insurance premiums. He said he sees this as a good investment in the future.
Mr. Rooker said that it makes sense, specifically in areas such as the Line of Duty Act and
workman’s compensation insurance, as savings could likely be realized in the future.
Mr. Boyd asked if this position will deal with health issues also, or is that a separate function. Mr.
Letteri said that, because the County is self-insured, the health program is a very large part of the financial
risk. He said he sees this as a partner in that area which would promote wellness and safety and, in turn,
would have a direct impact on claims.
Mr. Boyd noted that there are 14 real estate assessors and asked how many that department had
before the County made the decision from bi-annual to annual assessing. He said he had assumed there
wouldn’t be that many people added when that change was made.
Mr. Foley said he would check about staffing levels at that point.
Ms. Mallek recalled that the Board had asked the department to take on a whole new role
regarding revalidation to ensure that people were compliant and that was a huge savings. Ms. Allshouse
confirmed that there has been no staff increase in the Real Estate Office.
Mr. Letteri said the Finance Department is a large department and, as such, they have allocated
the salary lapse, so this includes a $66,000 reduction in the salary line to account for the notion of the
salary lapse. He said that staff would be monitoring the lapse on a monthly basis to ensure that they are
achieving those goals as they go through the year.
Mr. Rooker mentioned that he wants to ensure that there is aggregate stop-loss insurance as
opposed to just individual because, at the end of the day, the liability is in aggregate.
Mr. Letteri said that staff did look at that issue in detail and would share that with Mr. Rooker at
some point. Mr. Foley noted that that matter would be brought up in the work session.
March 4, 2013 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 9)
Mr. Boyd said that he had asked early on about the actual lapse factor and was hopeful, with
Access Albemarle, there would be some accounting. He said that is something staff should be able to
track using the new system.
Mr. Foley replied that staff can get that figure right away and said that, in budgeting lapse, there is
a total number that’s projected and a portion of that is carved out which staff feels is still appropriate.
Mr. Letteri reported that this department budget also includes a $50,000 increase in professional
services related to ongoing implementations of the County’s system. He said that most of the Access
Albemarle program is about the financial systems, and staff recognizes that there’s more work to be done
in changing the processes and procedures around this software. Mr. Letteri stated that there is also
$10,000 included for a bond referendum study which will allow the County to have its financial advisers
analyze the pros and cons on how the County should proceed and this issue has been discussed
previously. He mentioned that the CAFR preparation would continue to engage an individual to help staff
with the program and procedures for developing the CAFR internally. He said, once those procedures are
in place, he doesn’t anticipate the costs to be continued. Mr. Letteri stated that it also includes a $14,500
net increase to purchase a program called Costar, which is a database system that allows staff to look at
information about property values, market conditions and current commercial real estate information
which helps the County avoid litigation costs.
Mr. Letteri said there is also a $24,000 increase to fund essential training needs, adding that Betty
Burrell has been able to bring on more professional, certified staff, however, it does require ongoing
training to keep up licensures. Mr. Letteri said that the budget also includes $46,000 to fund a risk
management position beginning January 2014.
Mr. Boyd said that is something staff should be able to track the benefit of easily adding that the
Finance Department has a good track record.
Mr. Letteri noted that there are a number of strategic objectives and initiatives that the Finance
Department is focused on, such as the revenue and tax implemented this year and new banking services,
as well as formalizing the County’s investment policy in an effort to determine how the County can make
the best use of its funds. He said that Finance staff is rolling out the ‘purchasing card’ program, which is a
much more efficient way of procuring small items and keeping track of them. Mr. Letteri said Finance staff
is also looking at online auctioning to try to reduce the level of storage in various facilities. He stated that
Computerized Aided Mass Appraisal (CAMA) and the land use revalidation efforts are also underway
along with a continued focus on delinquency collections, and are projecting that overall collection rates will
increase by at least a percent based on these efforts.
_____
Mr. Letteri reported that, with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), there has been an
overall increase of $45,000 – or 15.5% – and much of this is driven by the need for a part-time grants
manager, which is viewed as a strategic investment to monitor grant activities and ensure compliance as
well as seeking grants.
Mr. Boyd asked how this had been dealt with in the past. Ms. Allshouse responded that the
Director of Housing, Ron White, has been helping out, but his workload is picking up in Housing so he
may not be as available.
_____
Mr. Letteri reported that the Department of Information Technology (IT) is one of the largest
departments with a broad spectrum of responsibilities throughout the organization, and there is an overall
decrease of $58,000 largely because the County is no longer carrying the $250,000 cost of maintaining
the mainframe. He said that there would be additional costs going forward as they transition the tax and
revenue system, but those costs were included in the appropriations done to support that effort. He said
that this budget includes the initiative discussed this year of adding an IT position, as there are quite a
number of sophisticated technology tools and programs the County uses and there are others that will be
needed to continue to monitor activities and allow the County to be more effective. He said that there is a
particular need in the public safety area, given the uniqueness of how their time and overtime is tracked
and that will require a good deal of programmatic help.
Mr. Letteri said that there is also a $17,000 increase for data processing consultants to address a
multi-year list of projects, and the County is continuing its efforts with laser fiche which is an important
records management component of the system used largely in the area of Social Services. He said this
budget item supports maintenance costs of that system.
Mr. Boyd asked if this would eventually save money in the area of needed storage space that is
being used now for records retention. Mr. Letteri responded that it would be an essential tool used, and
they have also formed a Records Management Team that is looking broadly at all record management
needs throughout the County including courts, schools, etc. He said those efforts are focused now on
Community Development and the internal departments of the government, but is expected to have
application elsewhere. Mr. Letteri said that the Schools have had significant storage needs, and the
Finance Department is looking into online auctioning as a method of disposing items before those items
would have to go into storage.
Mr. Rooker commented that it is better financially to turn those things into cash as soon as
possible, rather than paying to have them stored. Mr. Letteri said that the concept has become quite
popular in other localities.
March 4, 2013 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 10)
Mr. Letteri reported that there have been major IT upgrades in the financial system and HR payroll
system, and that department has also been instrumental in the PCI tax and revenue installation, working
on all the data conversions to perform them in the most cost-effective manner.
_____
Mr. Letteri stated that, in the Voter Registration Department, there has been an overall decrease
of $12,000, or 2.2%, largely due to the expected activity in voting.
Mr. Boyd asked why it would cost more for the four split precincts in 2013 than it did in 2011. Ms.
Mallek said ballot production.
Mr. Boyd said $10,000 of the expense was for the more complicated ballot and the four split
precincts. Mr. Foley said that the Presidential Election had an impact.
Ms. Mallek asked for confirmation that the budget does accommodate the possibility of new voting
machines, because this will take place as soon as the state decides which machines can be used to
replace the old crank ones. Mr. Letteri replied that this would be acknowledged in the CIP, as it would
likely be a liability for capital in the future but still as of yet unidentified, and it may possibly cost less than
the current equipment.
Mr. Letteri indicated that this concluded the internal operations budgets items, and he would move
on to external.
_____
Public Works
General Services
Facilities Development
The category of Public W orks, Mr. Letteri said, includes the areas of General Services,
stormwater, Facilities Development, and the County’s contribution to Rivanna Solid Waste Authority
(RSWA).
Mr. Letteri said that, in total, Public Works represents $4 million of the overall General Fund
budget, and has a $441,000 or 9.9% decrease over FY12-13.
Mr. Letteri reported that General Services provides buildings and grounds maintenance and
repairs and oversees the operations and mechanical systems for county-owned and operated facilities.
Mr. Letteri said there are 11 buildings that are maintained by General Services, totaling 382,000 square
feet and five acres of lawn. He stated that the department also oversees the County’s environmental
compliance mandates and energy conservation programs, Entrance Corridor beautification, and operates
the internal mail and Copy Center. Mr. Letteri said that the other component of General Services has
been the stormwater management issue, and that has been set up in a separate cost center.
Mr. Letteri stated that an additional $186,000 is provided in FY14 for buildings and grounds
maintenance, and one of the key additions to General Services this year has been support of public
libraries with the 23,000 square foot Crozet facility becoming the County’s responsibility to maintain as
well. He said staff felt these costs were better directed to General Services than to the Jefferson Madison
Regional Library (JMRL) budget due to the fact that the County has better rates for utilities because of the
ability to negotiate collectively with other localities. Mr. Letteri said there was another $50,000 or so that
has to do with cleaning the building, and this would be a contract to have someone clean the building 7
days a week.
Mr. Dumler asked what percentage of this amount was offset in the agreement signed with
Jefferson-Madison Regional Library (JMRL). Mr. Letteri responded that little of it was offset with the
Crozet Library because it was such a small facility. He added that the same is true of Scottsville, but they
did reflect reductions in electrical costs in their requested budget.
Mr. Rooker asked how much of that $162,000 would be utilities and janitorial services. Mr. Letteri
responded that each of those costs would be $50,000, and the other components would be maintaining
the parking area and grounds of the Crozet Library as well as maintaining the landscaping.
Mr. Rooker commented that, if one factors out utilities and janitorial services, it comes to about
$3.00 per square foot.
Ms. Mallek asked if not enough would be saved by the change to Northside than it was worth just
doing the cheaper utilities and then dividing the bill with this City.
Mr. Boyd said Northside is a leased facility. Mr. Letteri said that he didn’t know if there was a
utility component to the lease payment.
Mr. Davis stated that the difference with Northside is it operates as a library operational cost the
way the contract is set up so that the City and County costs are shared; it’s more difficult to do an
allocation with either party taking over responsibility. He added that issue is something staff is still looking
at though.
March 4, 2013 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 11)
Ms. Mallek said she would like to get a report about the safer chemicals being used by General
Services, and what the County is still doing versus not still doing, as there were some estimates that there
would be greater costs associated with that.
Mr. Boyd said that the environmental management position is another one that should be able to
demonstrate savings particularly in the area of fuel and energy cost reductions and he’d like to get a report
back on that at some point in the future.
Mr. Rooker pointed out that the budget anticipates a significant increase in utilities – an 11%
increase or $81,000 – and the Crozet Library and Scottsville Library have been broken out as separate
expense items. Mr. Letteri noted that $24,000 is the total increase strictly due to utility rate increases.
Mr. Rooker asked if the window replacements are expected to save money with utilities. Mr.
Letteri responded that the Oversight Committee had recommended doing an ROI (return on investment)
on the project to look at savings versus costs, but the windows have been put off for many years now. He
said that this would be discussed when capital items are brought up later in the week.
Mr. Letteri reported that the total increase in the stormwater category is $23,000, and the cost
center that now exists in General Services will be separated out. Staff is shifting that item to a separate
cost center, and this is about taking a step forward to begin the work that’s necessary to create a
stormwater utility, if that is the direction the Board chooses to go. That will enable staff to track these
costs separately going forward.
Mr. Dumler asked what percentage does the $266,000 stormwater CIP fund represent.
Mr. Letteri replied that there is a separate stormwater line item, but couldn’t recall the precise
numbers. He said it may be around $700,000-$800,000 in that account but some of that has been
earmarked for programs and projects.
Mr. Foley said staff could check the balance on that fund, and share it with the Board at the next
meeting. He stated that there is an assumption built in which assumes the funding of an operational
expense out of the money set aside in anticipation of where things are headed toward the establishment
of a utility. Mr. Foley noted that the Board could also decide to use general tax revenue to pay for the
stormwater program, however, that is the decision the Board will have to make.
Mr. Boyd asked if the $122,000 for solid waste and recycling is what the County is reimbursing to
Rivanna. Mr. Bowman explained that the $122,000 is to cover costs associated with recycling and
disposal for the County Office Buildings and facilities, and does not include Schools.
_____
Mr. Letteri reported that the Office of Facilities Development (OFD) is an internal services fund
that derives its resources from the capital program based upon billable hours to the actual projects, and
part of it is supported by the General Fund, which has to do with their administration of the operation, the
director and the assistant. He said that the total increases in this category are $73,000, due to the 5% and
2% merit increases as discussed earlier. Mr. Letteri noted that it also reflects an increase in billable
hours, going from $71 to $75 under this program in part to support those salary increases. He stated that
staff has looked at comparable market rates, and determined that Albemarle is well within being
competitive, and is almost an order of magnitude better than what they’re finding in the private market.
Mr. Foley pointed out that, in the General Fund expenditures, there is a $689,000 decrease in the
Office of Facilities Development.
Mr. Letteri said that OFD continues to do a great job, and has added some good staff through
replacements this year with a high level of expertise and their performance is monitored throughout the
year, both through schedule and through bringing projects in at budget. He said OFD also serves the
Schools and oversees all of its big capital projects, which is a major component of OFD’s workload.
Beyond the major projects, OFD helps the Schools with large maintenance projects. Mr. Letteri said that,
through the Schools’ maintenance budget, if they’re funding things like mechanical replacements and roof
replacements, OFD staff would have involvement.
Mr. Boyd asked if there was a reduction in the Schools’ budget since they don’t really perform that
function any longer, like they did when Al Reaser ran Facilities Management. Mr. Letteri responded that
they have made adjustments over the years in the department and they don’t now have the staff to deal
with any of these large projects. The School Division is relying on OFD much more heavily than ever.
Mr. Boyd said that he just wants to make sure there are no duplication costs.
Mr. Letteri commented that they meet routinely together to look for ways to avoid duplication, and
the County now has a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Schools for this. He compared
the Schools’ Building Facilities Department with the County’s General Services Department.
Mr. Rooker asked if the $75 per hour fee, which gets charged to projects, ultimately becomes a
part of the CIP and not an operational expense. Mr. Letteri said that is correct. He added that it is not
unlike architectural or engineering fees that are borne by the client and then ultimately financed over time
and built in as a capital item.
Mr. Foley emphasized that it is a component of the total project cost.
March 4, 2013 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 12)
Mr. Rooker said that the Schools do not pay it out of their operating cost, it is charged to the
project cost.
_____
Mr. Letteri stated that the last category is Public Works, and this is the contribution to the Rivanna
Solid Waste Authority (RSWA) for both the McIntire Recycling Center and the waste transfer facility. He
said the budget reflects a $50,000 decrease in that contribution.
Mr. Foley explained that this is basically the worst case scenario. He said the County got a
proposal from Tom Frederick that said if RSWA operates it themselves and it’s not put out to bid to the
private sector, where some savings were anticipated, it would be about $300,000. He said that, if the
whole process of putting an RFP together for someone to run the operation, oversee the contract, etc., the
fallback would be for Mr. Frederick to run the whole operation for about $290,000. He added that this is a
safe place from the budgeting perspective, and it could be a potential savings if we’re successful with the
RFP process.
Mr. Rooker said that one of the things that has been discussed in the past was the problem of
leasing the facility. He said, if there is to be a private operator and the County has to be the intermediary
lessee, then it becomes a liability issue for the County. He stated that this issue needs to be settled
before an RFP goes out because, if the County doesn’t want to be the lessee that will change the nature
of an RFP.
Mr. Foley responded that there is a special work session on Thursday of this week, and that’s one
of the primary issues to be discussed because Rivanna will want to protect themselves from any liabilities
also.
Mr. Rooker said, to save $50,000 but increase the County’s liability that may actually be no
savings at all.
Mr. Foley said there’s also a risk of overseeing the contract, but all of those things, pros and cons,
will be laid out in the work session.
_____
(Note: At 11:00 a.m., the Board recessed, and then reconvened at 11:09 a.m.)
_____
Community Services
o Public Safety
Police
Fire Rescue
Other Public Safety
Mr. Letteri reported that the category of Public Safety represents the largest category in General
Government operations, and includes the areas of Police, Fire/Rescue, Inspections, the Emergency
Operations Center (ECC), the Albemarle/Charlottesville Regional Jail (ACRJ), other fire and rescue
services (volunteer), and public safety agencies. He said that, overall, increases in this department total
just over $1 million, including the addition of two police officers, one school resource officer, and one
traffic safety officer which recovers some of the revenue through the Photo Safe program. Mr. Letteri
stated that $48,000 of this increase is based on overtime, largely due to salary changes as well He stated
that operational increases total $35,000 due to the training and firearm qualifications and the impact of
patrol video cameras and this category is also partially offset in fuel decrease costs. He said that capital
outlay increases total $118,000, and a large part of their budget is replacing police vehicles. Mr. Letteri
noted that staff is anticipating revenue increases of $284,000 due to the increase in local and state
revenues and the School’s share of the safety officer.
Mr. Dumler said that the Police Department is proposing two additional officers based on the
policy change implemented to index that number to inflation, and asked how far behind Albemarle County
is as far as total allocated FTEs and total hired FTEs.
Ms. Allshouse said that the number was actually indexed to population, and she confirmed with
Chief Sellers that the Police Department is at 122 officers. If that department were to use the old Comp
Plan goal, it would be 1.5 officers per thousand, or about 28 officers below that old standard.
Mr. Foley said Chief Sellers has been trying to get up to full staffing, but there is always some
turnover; however, he feels they will be up to 122 officers shortly.
Mr. Dumler also asked how the public safety reclassification is impacting hiring. Chief Sellers
stated that the force is about 117 officers currently, with the cap at 122 and, based on what he has in the
pipeline now, he expects to be fully staffed by April 1. He said that, in terms of the reclassification process
that occurred last year, it didn’t have a significant effect on recruiting but what did have a positive effect on
recruiting was the $125,000 the Board set aside for career development. Those funds allowed his
department to offer some small salary enhancements for officers who have college degrees as well as
compensating those who are working diligently toward their college degrees which, in turn, helped with
retention and recruitment.
Mr. Rooker asked if that enhancement included the second language category. Chief Sellers
responded that it did not.
March 4, 2013 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 13)
Ms. Mallek noted that it needed to be added somehow.
Mr. Foley said that, once the second language category is added, there’s another cost, and Chief
Sellers wanted to focus on what he felt was most important.
_____
Mr. Letteri reported that the Fire and Rescue budget for FY14 increases $1.3 million or 16.9%,
and this is the first full year of impact for the eight firefighters for the Ivy Fire Station. He said there is a
$231,000 increase associated with overtime costs due to the Ivy Fire Station, the FEMA-SAFER grant
expiring mid-2015, and salary changes as well as historical experience. Mr. Letteri said that operational
budget increases total $104,378 primarily due to the opening of Ivy Fire Station and the FEMA-SAFER
grant and training issues.
Mr. Foley stated that this is one of those areas with special revenue funds, and Fire and Rescue is
actually going up about 24% total when the special revenue funds are added to General Funds but that’s
the effect of having federal monies coming in.
Mr. Snow asked if the grants were affected by sequestration. Mr. Foley responded that this
particular FEMA grant would not be affected.
Mr. Rooker said it is a little difficult to understand the net and asked how much of that $965,000 is
being covered by the FEMA grant this year. Ms. Mallek said none. Mr. Rooker said that would then make
it a net increase.
Mr. Letteri said that the budget includes a Division Chief for volunteer services, which has been an
area of focus, and it is felt that the County will be well-served by having a person to help with
communications and coordination between the 10 different stations. He stated that EMS service delivery
changes include $402,000 related to a number of items, including the Ivy ambulance, three firefighters on
Rt. 29 North, a Rt. 29 North ambulance full time, the jump crews associated with these, and costs directly
related to revenue collections.
Mr. Boyd asked if a jump crew was planned for Stony Point. Chief Eggleston responded that
Stony Point has made the decision not to support an ambulance there, adding that the County will be
working with them over time as staff still sees it as a great advantage to that community. He said staff will
try to work through some of the issues over time with the folks at Stony Point but, at this point right now,
Stony Point does not support it. He added that those minor operational changes for the ambulance at
Stony Point – fuel and maintenance – are not reflected in this budget.
Ms. Mallek asked Chief Eggleston about staffing changes at Ivy. Chief Eggleston confirmed that
there will be three people for the daytime ambulance Monday through Friday, 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. He
said that the three additional people at Ivy are for the ambulance, and there are eight people budgeted for
Ivy in addition to the volunteers and some amount of the SAFER funding to be incorporated and staff that
engine 24/7.
Mr. Boyd asked if staffing figures weren’t showing up here because those will be coming out of the
SAFER funding. Chief Eggleston responded that the nine people for the SAFER grant are in the special
revenue fund.
Ms. Mallek said that she didn’t recall approving the hire of more than the original six, and now it’s
nine. Chief Eggleston explained that what’s new here is the ambulance, as that was not planned for when
talks began about staffing for the Ivy Station – there was to only be an engine; and that staffing for the
engine included eight people out of this year’s budget, in addition to the volunteers. He said that the
SAFER grant allowed for a little more flexibility in case the target on the volunteer end wasn’t reached. He
said there are about 18 volunteers right now which will allow the County to staff that engine on nights and
weekends with one volunteer, and then some of the staffing from the FEMA grant will help round that out
to make sure that there is enough staffing for the engine 24/7.
Ms. Mallek said that would change the design as a volunteer station to have staff there 24 hours a
day. Chief Eggleston stated that there’s still a volunteer that will be part of that three-person crew, and
that person would serve nights and weekends.
Mr. Foley explained that the original request for was 12 people, but the Board didn’t approve that
so staff budgeted for eight, and has been recruiting for volunteers. He said that the SAFER grant has
allowed them to extend that recruitment period and, in the meantime, staff has been able to fill the gap
with FEMA money to help run that. He added that there are 12 people to run that station around the clock.
He said they would have had to make the decision this year and add people if they didn’t have enough
volunteers.
Ms. Mallek emphasized that it wasn’t approved to be another paid station, it had approval to be a
volunteer station with paid staff during the daytime, and we’re sliding away from that. Mr. Foley responded
that this is not where they’re going in terms of planning, and what they’re doing is including the eight
people the Board had approved hiring as the only people in the budget. He explained that staff is
continuing the volunteer recruitment effort, which would have ended by now, because the station is going
to open in July, however, the grant has allowed for the extension of the recruitment. He stated that those
efforts are still underway, but the County now has a little bit more time to recruit because of this grant
which is helping fill the gap.
March 4, 2013 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 14)
Ms. Mallek said that her second question is why the paid staff is not operating as a jump crew for
Ivy as they do in Earlysville, which has very similar call numbers, so there will not be a doubling up on
staff. Chief Eggleston responded that staff looked at that issue but, since the County is transitioning away
from the current City contract, there is now a need to replace what that contract provided in terms of an
engine company with Ivy. He said that if Ivy uses a jump crew, that station would cover portions of 29
South and, based on that call volume, they would lose the capacity to have a staffed engine crew – which
would help make up the loss of the City contract. He said staff didn’t think that was a good strategy going
forward.
Mr. Foley emphasized that the added cost of this budget is large, and a big part of that is because
the County had only budgeted for the eight firefighters for half a year, so now there is a full year and that’s
a big piece of the increase which staff had anticipated would hit in the second year of this initiative.
Mr. Snow stated that some of the money is offsetting through the cancellation of part of the City
contract and the new EMS recovery fees.
Mr. Foley responded that that’s absolutely the case, and if they had shown expenditures offset in
the bottom line, the Board would see a savings of $738,000.
Mr. Rooker said that’s why he wanted to see a net on this. He said that the cost increase is not
entirely Ivy, as it also includes some operational expense increases in addition to the volunteer
coordinator. Mr. Rooker said that it’s the $966,000 and the $84,000 in benefits that you can look at as a
true expense and, from that, you offset whatever revenue recovery there is from that unit and the City
contract cuts. He said the net difference between those two is not huge. He added that, when the FEMA
grant expires and if volunteers have not been recruited to fill in those positions, then there would be a big
net increase.
Ms. Mallek stated that is why she is making the point that they can’t allow the new station to
evolve the way Station11 and Station 12 did, where they started out with volunteers who eventually went
away because they were never allowed to be in charge and to have a shift that was all their own.
Mr. Rooker commented that her point is well taken, and this year’s not bad; it’s when the FEMA
grant expires that there will potentially be a big increase.
Chief Eggleston emphasized that their strategy for volunteer recruitment at Ivy has not changed,
and staff is working very hard to get the volunteers they have now in the academy trained after the fact to
ensure that, when they open the station in July, there will be enough staff to maintain service around the
clock. He said they were working very closely with Bob Larsen, the Chief at Ivy, and he is doing a
wonderful job. Chief Eggleston said that Ivy should end up on July 1 with about 18 trained firefighters
which is a huge achievement, and they will want to continue that, which is why they will request some
additional advertising money to continue the recruitment effort long past the opening of the station.
Mr. Boyd said that there is, in this budget, an additional position to help with recruitment of
volunteers.
Ms. Mallek stated that the new hire is supposed to be working with communication, and when
Jason had the position, he got sucked into recruitment, administration, etc., and never got out to do the
things he was supposed to do.
Mr. Foley said staff is in a challenging place of having set a very ambitious goal of getting
volunteers to staff a station, and that’s not happening anywhere in the country although there has been
some successes locally. He said that the alternative to what’s before them is to not use the FEMA
positions, open the Ivy Station in July, abandon the volunteer recruitment effort, and then the County
would have to fund some more positions. Mr. Foley said the County is utilizing the grants to extend that
recruitment period to provide a better opportunity at being more successful, and that may mean there are
career people in a station that staff is trying to recruit volunteers for and it changes the atmosphere. He
stated that the alternative is to ask for more staff, adding that staff is really doing the best they can with
this scenario. He pointed out that recruiting volunteers to staff a station is tough.
Mr. Rooker said that is particularly true when it’s a new station to add or to perpetuate something
that has been volunteer for, i.e., 50 years.
Ms. Mallek said what brings people into the station is having training for volunteers.
Mr. Foley said that most localities don’t do volunteer training at stations because of the cost, and
there is a good investment to do that in this budget, with future requests pending to do even more such as
extending it in Earlysville. He stated that the process staff is following is also important with a volunteer
chief helping with recruitment in addition to having Mr. Snow participate in TV ads which is encouraging
volunteers. Mr. Foley said there were also signs posted around the County and recruitment events held,
but, if there are efforts the Board would like to add, they should make those suggestions. Right now,
these efforts have allowed staff to avoid coming to the Board sooner in terms of career staff, because of
the FEMA grant which, in turn, has helped staff extend that recruitment period. He added that there is a
lot of new service in here and a lot of expense. Mr. Foley said he would like to provide some follow-up to
the Board with expenditure offsets in this particular calculation, because the $996,000 drops down to
under $200,000 with offsets which is not a bad deal when considering what’s being added, including the
assistant chief position.
March 4, 2013 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 15)
Mr. Snow said the follow-up discussion should include the EMS recovery offset.
Mr. Foley said staff has also done a separate breakdown of the net costs of adding ambulances
that generate revenue but there is a cost associated with those, and that will be pulled out for discussion
as well.
Ms. Mallek commented that there’s a lot of good work going on, especially with Mr. Foley’s effort
and the help with Western Albemarle Rescue Squad, adding that has been a huge step forward.
Mr. Foley said that the Fire and Rescue staff has worked really hard on this too, and the position
proposed can make a big difference because of the time allowed for working on communications and
interaction with volunteers.
Regarding Fire & Rescue services, Mr. Letteri said a major part of the decrease in this budget is
driven by the change in the City contract which was reduced by $786,000, netting an overall decrease in
this department by $559,000. He said that the category itself is $2.2 million total and provides funding
support and assistance to volunteer fire companies and volunteer rescue squads that is vital in the
combination system. Mr. Letteri said that other changes include increases of $181,000 or 9.9%, which
involves $148,000 due to reported expenditures for items in accordance with the funding policy. He stated
that budget staff looked in detail at the history of expenditures at all the different fire stations, and this
funding proposal is based on that information.
Ms. Mallek said this is the first time the County has been able to meet policy in about five years,
which is huge.
Mr. Foley said it’s the first time since the policy was implemented and it’s a big step forward.
Mr. Letteri reported that there were increases to Western Albemarle Rescue Squad (WARS) and
reductions in Charlottesville/Albemarle Rescue Squad (CARS) funding based upon changes in the
contract, and $32,000 or 6.7% in increases for supplies associated with these operations.
Ms. Mallek asked for an explanation of accident/sickness insurance, adding that she would be
happy if volunteers were allowed to join in on County insurance. Mr. Bowman said that this is just
referring to the County’s liability.
Chief Eggleston explained that this is the Provident policy that Fire & Rescue has for volunteers
which includes a vehicle, accident and injury policy and it’s a very lucrative policy that’s been compared
with what the County could provide in terms of worker’s comp for volunteers. He added that the FEMS
Board Executive Committee felt it was a good policy to stay with and there was no cost benefit to move
forward with worker’s comp. He said that the policy covers injury or illness related to something that
happens from the moment a volunteer is notified of a call to the time they get back home after responding,
and even covers lost wages. He added that this is a very good policy.
Mr. Foley suggested removing the word ‘sickness’ and replacing it with ‘injury.’
_____
Ms. Mallek asked about the amount in the budget for overtime during hunting season, as she
noticed there was $13,000 included. Mr. Foley said that’s a special appropriation in the budget, and he
would explain that item when they come back to that topic.
Ms. Allshouse reported on Public Safety contributions, stating that contributions to some agencies
come through contracts or through Agency Budget Review Team (ABRT) review. She explained that
agencies are in every category, as the state requires that funding must be put in a category to which it is
assigned. Ms. Allshouse stated that the regional jail expense has decreased by about $200,000; the
Emergency Communications Center (ECC) has decreased by $6,000 based on the new contract; the Blue
Ridge Juvenile Detention Center increased 8%, or $63,000. She said that the SPCA will increase about
$20,000 or about 3.7%, based on the contract formula.
Ms. Mallek said that Foothills Child Advocacy Center received an exemplary rating, and she would
like to submit that as a candidate for full funding instead of cutting them back again. When an agency
receives an exemplary rating and is working with children, their request should receive full funding.
Ms. Allshouse explained that basically they increase what the County has funded them in the
previous year, not necessarily based on their request.
Mr. Rooker said they received $885 more than last year, however, that is not a big increase.
Mr. Foley said that’s a 3% increase which was what all of the agencies received if an exemplary
rating was achieved.
Ms. Allshouse stated that the key is the increase on what was provided to those agencies in the
current year versus what was requested.
Mr. Foley said staff will add that item to the list for further discussion.
March 4, 2013 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 16)
Ms. Allshouse reported that inspections and building codes is an item that will be discussed in
Community Development. She said those were included in the Public Safety area as part of the
categorization requirements.
_____
o Human Services
Social Services
Bright Stars Fund/CSA Fund
Human Services Agencies
Mr. Letteri reported that Health and Welfare comprises a large portion of the general operating
budget at $18.5 million, and the recommended budget represents an increase of $477,000 or 2.7% over
last year’s budget. He said that the category includes the Department of Social Services (DSS), which is
the largest component at 59%; Bright Stars, Comprehensive Services Act (CSA) funding, the Health
Department, Region Ten, JAUNT, other health and welfare agencies, and Tax Relief for the Elderly and
Disabled.
Mr. Letteri said that the allocation for DSS increases by $543,000 or about 5.2% in the FY14
budget, adding four positions to this department including an eligibility worker and an eligibility supervisor,
an adult services worker, and a Bright Stars family coordinator. He said the budget provides for increases
of $18,300 in overtime wages based on overall workloads in the department. He added that there is an
operating cost increase of $67,000 or 2.2% primarily to change programs that are fully or partially
reimbursed; and related revenue increases of $315,407 of 4.7%.
Mr. Rooker stated that there was a transfer to Bright Stars reduction of $88,000 and asked for an
explanation, given that a person has been added to that area. Ms. Allshouse responded that it’s due to a
change in the composite index, which resulted in more state money.
Mr. Bowman explained that the state has capped the composite index for this program at .5, and
the actual composite index is .635.
Mr. Rooker stated that the County essentially makes up the difference in what they don’t get from
the state. Mr. Bowman said that was the case, and the FY13 budget assumed the entire composite index.
Mr. Rooker said that, including this increase then, the net was a reduction of $88,000 in general
County expense. Mr. Bowman said that was correct, and $43,000 refers to the entire fund.
Mr. Snow asked if these additional four people would help alleviate the workload stress on the
DSS staff. Ms. Kathy Ralston addressed the Board, stating that it is a huge shot in the arm, and the
request to the County Executive was for 15.5 positions which is why there is an increase in overtime, as
DSS staff is still not able to keep up, even with the addition of these positions. She said the extra
positions will definitely take some of the pressure off current staff.
Mr. Snow asked if the workload had peaked at this point. Ms. Ralston said that the benefit
program load is still going up, but not at quite the rapid rate it was going. She stated that where they’re
seeing an increase now is in foster care, where there has been a fairly sizeable increase with children 0-5.
Ms. Ralston said that they are sitting down with community partners who work with that early intervention
group, such as the CHIP program and the Healthy Families program and Family Partners at Children,
Youth & Family Services (CYFS), to try to figure out what’s going on and why there are such noticeable
increases.
Mr. Boyd noted that those numbers were going down before. Ms. Ralston said it was going down,
and what was going up is teenage children – but that’s starting to level off. She said that the good news is
the younger children are much easier to adopt, so there may be increases in adoptions as a result of that.
Mr. Dumler asked if they had objective caseload criteria for those positions so the Board can see
which initiatives are being hurt by the Board’s inability to fund those. Ms. Ralston responded that they do,
and those are provided in the strategic initiatives but could be pulled out from the narrative.
Mr. Rooker mentioned that her report would be presented on Wednesday.
Ms. Ralston said that information would be for FY12, so it wouldn’t capture the increase in foster
care that is being seen now.
Mr. Rooker asked if Ms. Ralston had any advanced information on how sequestration might affect
their programs. Ms. Ralston responded that the state DSS office has indicated that, for the current federal
fiscal year, they were in good standing, as they have been able to set aside funds to blunt any cuts from
sequestration; however, for federal FY14 and FY15, unless they come up with a different plan, we likely
will be hit. She said that the largest reductions will be made in the Social Services Block Grant, which is
the only federal source that funds adult protective services and is the primary one for Child Protective
Services and foster care. Ms. Ralston added that they would also lose some minor programs, which
would likely see increases in CSA.
Ms. Mallek said there are zero dollars for CHIP in the budget on the agency list, and asked if the
County needed to be paying attention to that because that program works with young babies. Ms. Ralston
explained that they don’t have universal access for young parents in this community. She explained that
universal access is a program whereby everyone who had a baby at UVA or Martha Jefferson would get a
March 4, 2013 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 17)
visit from a home visitor and a nurse that checks in with the new mother to see if she needs help. She
said that CHIP and Healthy Families are the two primary programs they can refer to for early intervention,
and they really get the kids who are at risk but a lot of people are missed because of the lack of universal
access. Ms. Ralston said that one of the things Social Services is doing is tracking those cases that have
had CHIP or Healthy Families intervention, but the families don’t always reveal that information. She
stated that the concern is that there are kids taken into CPS that have never had access to CHIP or
healthy families and that is one thing that’s really hurting the community.
Mr. Foley mentioned that CHIP is level funded in this budget. He asked Ms. Ralston to take a
moment to explain the situation with Mountainside.
Ms. Ralston explained that the County and City had a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with
Jefferson Area Board for Aging (JABA) and JEC, Inc. to provide some funding for Mountainside Senior
Living, which is one of several adult care facilities but one of the largest and one of the only ones that
provides a substantial number of auxiliary grant bed spaces in the community which is for low income
people. Ms. Ralston said that contract was due to be up March 2012, but the City and County discussed
with JABA how to deal with the MOU in the coming years and set about to do some analysis. She stated
that, during that analysis, it was discovered that, according to the administrative process code in Virginia,
no one can provide additional supplement for auxiliary grant beds. Ms. Ralston said that general
operations can be supplemented for a facility like Mountainside, but it can’t be tied to auxiliary grant beds
because it’s technically subsidizing those beds. She stated that they can subsidize Mountainside in
general, and Mountainside is a very valuable resource in the community as it provides a lot of bed space
but you can’t hold the facility as to whom they provide those services.
Ms. Ralston said that Mountainside, JEC Inc. and JABA have made some conscious decisions
over the last few years to make some changes as to how they decide supplements for their beds that have
not been communicated to the County during the course of the MOU. She said that Mountainside decided
to supplement some private-pay people coming into Mountainside, made some changes in how they
would allocate beds and reduced the number of licensed beds which decreased revenues, and some
other changes that have all impacted revenue. She added that the one issue that is most concerning is
that the County can no longer tie the allocation to the auxiliary grant bed.
Mr. Rooker said that the County can tie next year’s contribution to their performance in the prior
year.
Ms. Mallek clarified that the auxiliary grant money covers 50% of the cost for the person per
month, so they’ve been raising privately the $20,000 annually for those beds which, in the past, was
supplemented by the County to offset that the gap.
Ms. Ralston said that the other thing to keep in mind that supplementing Mountainside for general
operations does open the Board up for other adult care facilities to ask for the same thing. Mr. Boyd said
that’s been his concern all along when they extended the MOU, as to whether they really want to get the
County involved in the assisted living facility business.
Ms. Mallek said that Windham was about to go bankrupt, and the County came to JABA and
asked for help, and that’s how all this started. Mr. Davis explained that the County was in the process of
getting out of the regional home in Staunton, and sold that property, and there was a savings to the
County for a service they had been providing on a regional level. The County then entered into this
agreement with Windham at that time for a one-time payment of $177,000 which was going to be used to
open and operate this home, without requiring any additional supplement from the County after that first
year. He said Windham had a business plan and agreed to gain-share with the County to return the
$177,000, but that didn’t work out so they came back over the years asking for additional supplemental
appropriations from the County but that agreement never changed, and the only compensation that was
required under the agreement by the County was the $177,000 to provide those beds for a 10-year period,
which has just now expired. He pointed out that, now the County has no agreement with them going
forward stating that the County has no obligation to fund them and there has not been any obligation to
fund them for the last nine years.
Mr. Rooker asked if Mountainside has any obligation to provide a certain number of beds to the
County. Mr. Davis responded no and added that obligation has now been completed. He said they didn’t
comply with that agreement because they didn’t have any gain to share and, over the last 10 years, the
County has provided them an additional $585,000 in appropriations that weren’t required to be provided
under that agreement.
Ms. Mallek commented that that was money well spent for people who needed it, and
Mountainside has increased the number of private-pay clients to put towards the auxiliary beds. She
stated that she desperately hopes that the County will not turn its back on these folks, because these are
people who have worked their lives and have tried to be independent and contribute, and they’re just out
of money.
Mr. Rooker said he is sympathetic, however, there are also a lot of people that are out there that
are not staying at Mountainside who have similar needs, some whom I know firsthand, that don’t receive
any kind of housing subsidy. He said that there is an aging population in general, and JABA does a terrific
job of providing services in this community that other communities don’t have, and they do a lot of it with
private fundraising. He said he was not averse to increasing the amount they give to JABA, and hopefully
they find a way to keep Mountainside open and keep providing some auxiliary beds but he is somewhat
averse to the idea of picking out one assisted living facility to subsidize that one and not subsidize others.
March 4, 2013 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 18)
He stated that it’s a bit of a philosophical issue to him, and they need to improve services to seniors in
general in the community, and JABA is focused on those who have the least resources. Mr. Rooker said
he would continue the contribution directly to JABA, with a request that they try to provide auxiliary beds as
best they can at Mountainside.
Mr. Snow said the contribution should be tied into next year’s funding.
Mr. Boyd said the difference is that Mountainside shouldn’t be singled out as one particular
agency, adding that there is a formula that’s nonpolitical and a group that rates them on performance
basis. He said the County should not put any others ahead of other people nor just pick winners and
losers in that nonprofit community.
Mr. Rooker stated that the County contributed $50,000 last year to JABA in the form of auxiliary
beds at Mountainside, so no one is talking about increasing that amount, but just re-categorizing that
money and not necessarily tying it to Mountainside.
Mr. Boyd asked if Mr. Rooker felt the County should change its formula for nonprofits and rate
seniors higher than youth, for example.
Mr. Rooker said he is saying that the $50,000 that was categorized last year would now be
uncategorized; stating that does not increase the amount that the agency receives.
Mr. Boyd said he agreed with that.
Mr. Foley emphasized that JABA doesn’t go through the ABRT process, because they have been
designated as an agency, not a nonprofit. He said that there is $55,000 set aside and previously it was
designated for Mountainside services but Mr. Rooker is suggesting not tying the contribution to any
particular facility.
Mr. Rooker said that Board members have expressed a desire that Mountainside continue to
provide auxiliary beds there, but he doesn’t think it is wise for the County to be taking the approach that it
will be subsidizing one assisted living facility and not another.
Mr. Boyd said he agreed. He said giving the contribution to JABA in general allows them to make
its own priority decisions as to the most important programs to continue.
Mr. Thomas noted that the Boys & Girls Club requested $45,000 but the recommendation is for
$20,000; he also noticed that First Tee had asked for $34,452, but got funded at $0.
Ms. Mallek said that Boys & Girls Club is getting a $7,600 increase based upon what they got last
year and they, indeed, did ask for more.
Mr. Thomas said that First Tee has been struggling, and he wondered why they were not getting
any money.
Ms. Gretchen Ellis addressed the Board, stating that the Boys & Girls Club submitted a very
strong application that showed meaningful outcomes for the children they’re serving, and they’ve also
doubled the number of kids they’re serving at Southwood. She said they had asked for a separate pot of
money for Southwood, but the County couldn’t quite assess how that was different from their general
youth development operations, so the increase was recommended combining those two programs and it
was rated exemplary. She said that the First Tee application was extremely weak, due to the fact they
didn’t provide any information about need, didn’t describe any outcomes, didn’t show any benefit to the
community or the children they’re serving in their application. She said a member of the Agency Budget
Review Team made a site visit and was unable to get much more information, therefore, they were not
recommended to receive any funding.
Mr. Thomas said the City has abandoned it, and he is trying to salvage it.
Ms. Ellis said that the City did not recommend funding either.
Mr. Rooker said that the Boys & Girls Club and First Tee are night and day, as the Boys & Girls
Club runs after-school programs with a strong educational component for many, many children after
school.
Mr. Thomas said that he is very familiar with Boys & Girls Club and was one of their original board
members, and First Tee is moving in that direction.
Ms. Mallek asked if the summer expanded hours were recommended in the ABRT official
number. Ms. Ellis explained that there was a recommendation for funding, and most of that came from
the City last year so the funding for the summer expansion is coming from the City this year because
those programs are in the City at Cherry Avenue. She noted that James Pierce has said they are
beginning to serve more kids from Jack Jouett and are running buses to Cherry Ave.
Mr. Rooker said they are negotiating with the County right now to increase the service in the
Jouett area. He added that First Tee is a good organization, and there is a similar program for tennis
called Quick Start which is not funded by the County, nor do they fund little league sports. He said he
doesn’t think they’re in the same category as the kinds of things that the Boys & Girls Club do.
March 4, 2013 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 19)
Mr. Thomas said that First Tee has enough money currently to go through October right now.
Mr. Foley stated that the criteria the Board has established for funding agencies doesn’t lend itself
well to tennis and these other programs that were mentioned, not that it’s not a valuable thing.
Mr. Snow said that a constituent had asked him if any effort is made when someone on tax relief
sells their home to someone who doesn’t qualify.
Ms. Mallek stated that it’s not a deferral, it’s a waiver. Mr. Davis said that it’s not like the land use
program, where it’s multiple years.
Ms. Mallek said that the waiver is for the person, not on the land.
_____
Mr. Letteri reported that Comprehensive Services Act (CSA) is an $8.6-million expense providing
primarily mandated services for at-risk children, and revenue sources include the state at $4.7 million and
the Schools at $1.2 million through transfer. He said the County’s portion of this is $2.3 million, which will
actually decrease this year.
Mr. Rooker said that the overall cost of CSA mandated services went up by $2 million, and asked
what was done in the program to have the costs increase by 31%. He said that the entire increase was
covered by the state at $1.5 million and school fund transfer at $500,000, and asked what the changes
were to increase the cost that much. He also asked if the school amount was a new expense for them,
and whether they have a revenue item to cover that. He also asked if the benefit increases would be a
situation where the state starts increasing benefits, but then starts bleeding that increase over to the
localities.
Ms. Ralston responded that the increase is largely on the School side, as there has been a pretty
significant increase in special education services costs, and the $500,000 from the Schools is an increase
in expenses for them. She said, when this was first set up in 1992, Schools made the conscious decision
that it would fund their portion out of their budget and DSS would fund its portion out of Local Government,
and it’s been that way ever since. She said, otherwise, the County would start to see these increases on
the Local Government side pretty significantly. Ms. Ralston added that funding for special education for
day operations and day placements for students comes from the School’s budget and the funding has
stayed fairly constant for the last three or four years.
Mr. Rooker said it all goes into the fund, from which benefits are paid, regardless of the source.
Mr. Boyd said the Board has been trying to get the CSA field leveled for years legislatively.
Ms. Ralston stated that it’s not benefits that people get; it is paying for services. She said
students who can’t be served in the school system have to be put into placements and that’s a big cost
with some of them being residential, even out of state. She stated it is really based on the IEP that the
Schools do, and are mandated to provide services for these children by the federal government. She said
that the formula has stayed constant but what is changing is the state’s emphasis on the need for more
local-only dollars. Ms. Ralston said localities are responding that this is a matching program for children
who are essentially wards of the state. Ms. Ralston noted that there’s an administrative policy change
underway that could have a significant impact on local dollars from a service standpoint.
Mr. Boyd asked if it would be possible to get information on how many individuals are being
served under CSA at an annual cost of $50,000 or more. Ms. Ralston said that the state DSS is moving
toward a transformation of children’s services, and the idea is to serve children in their home community
more than ever, to avoid placing them in a residential facility, and serve them with wrap-around services
so they can stay with their natural families. She said staff is putting extraordinary efforts into doing that
with families now with ‘Family Partnership Meetings’ that go on with these families at certain decision
points along the way. She said that some of these meetings take hours and hours and include extended
family in an effort to help establish what can help contribute to making the child safe and keeping the
families together. She added that they are bringing kids back, but the wrap-around services sometimes
are just as expensive as a placement far away.
Mr. Snow asked if there was any redundancy in the system in terms of the different agencies that
also support these types of services. Ms. Ralston said that was one of the reasons why CSA was set up,
and there is a Community Policy and Management Team (CPMT) that oversees those funds and, within
that, is a structure of teams such as FAPT that reviews all the cases that come into the system so that
there is not any overlap, and resources are maximized. She said only core agencies (Health Department,
Region Ten, Community Services Board, Court Services Unit, Schools, DSS and Local Government) are
involved in the CPMT process.
Mr. Rooker commented that the children usually handled under CSA would not be covered by
other agencies such as the Boys & Girls Club, as they can’t provide the special services needed and as
the law mandates.
Mr. Boyd asked which DSS clients are served through CSA money. Ms. Ralston responded that
those funds are expended on foster care children, and also foster care prevention with children designated
as a ‘Child in Need of Services’ by the court, or a child that has come to DSS’s attention through abuse
and neglect cases. DSS also provides counseling to the adults in order to maintain the child in the home.
She also indicated to Mr. Rooker that a lot of those agencies do provide services to some of these
March 4, 2013 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 20)
children, such as Boys & Girls Club, but it is all part of a service plan that is put together by a team of
people for a particular child or family.
Mr. Rooker asked about the administrative expense of CSA and how that is being handled.
Ms. Ralston said DSS receives about $12,000 for administration, and spends about $300,000.
The Board decided to wrap up its discussion for the day.
______________
Agenda Item No. 3. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
The Board discussed the possibility of postponing the meeting due to snow. Mr. Davis explained
that, by statute, if the Chair declares the Board cannot assemble on Wednesday because of weather,
everything on that agenda, by law, gets heard at the next regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors,
including those items advertised for public hearing, without no additional advertisement required. He said
that the complicating factor is that the Board has scheduled an adjourned meeting for Thursday and, if the
Board is going hold that budget work session, then it would have to call a special meeting which could
then be adjourned to the following Monday, if necessary.
______________
Agenda Item No. 4. Adjourn.
There being no further business, the Board adjourned their meeting at 12:28 p.m.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by Board
Date: 05/01/2013
Initials: EWJ