Loading...
1986-03-19 adjMarch 19, 1986 (Afternoon - Adjourned Meeting) 419 An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on March 19, 1986, at 1:00 P.M., Meeting Room ~7, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia, this meeting being adjourned from March 18, 1986. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke (arrived at 1:07 P.M.), Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr. (arrived at 1:11 P.M.), C. Timothy Lindstrom (arrived at 1:05 P.M.) and Peter T. Way. BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Deputy County Executive; and Mr. Ray B. Jones, Deputy County Executive. Agenda Item No. 1. Chairman, Mr. Fisher. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at 1:05 P.M. by the Agenda Item No. 2. Budget Work Session: 1986-87 County Budget. Mr. Fisher called to ~order the meeting adjourned from March 18, 1986, to continue work on the budget. He said that conclusions should be drawn at this meeting as to what will be advertised for the County budget for next year. Zoning Department. Requested - $221,384; Recommended - $198,501. Mr. Tucker commented that there are no substantial changes in Zoning, however, he brought a new program to the Board's attention. He said that this program is a Development Information office, and has a start-up cost in this year's budget. He pointed out that in the first category of line items that deal with compensation, the line item entitled "Salary Adjustment-Promotion" is directly related to the beginning of the program with over $2,100 of funds being provided for the promotion of an existing person in the Zoning Department to take on the additional responsibilities. Throughout the remainder of items on the operational side, there are line items that provide for furniture, beginning costs of brochures, etc., for this office. He said that it is possible that a consultant may be hired to redesign the flow charts and other things that have been developed in-house so that they will be eye-catching and can be understood easier by the general public. He hopes that the office will be open by July 1, 1986. Mr. Tucker also mentioned that "Compensation for Boards and Commissions" has always been carried at $3,000, which is more than normally spent in past years. He said that members of the Board of Zoning Appeals are paid $25 per meeting which normally amounts to no more than $1,800 per year. They are also paid for any additional meetings and occasionally there will be more than one meeting per month due to a heavy workload. Mr. Tucker suggested reducing the amount to $2,000. Under the operational category, there is a 71 percent decrease in the "Repair and Maintenance" section. Mr. Tucker explained that this is primarily reflecting current expen- ditures. He said that "Repair and Maintenance of Office Equipment" is up 30 percent which reflects a computer terminal that has been added in the office. The next major increase that Mr. Tucker discussed was "Insurance for Vehicles," which is due to the rate increase. This insurance will increase to approximately $800 per vehicle. Mr. Agnor commented that the staff will be presenting proposals to the Board for a possible self insurance program for collisions, removing collision insurance from older vehicles or the possibility of pooling all liability insurance under a state risk management program. Mr. Lindstrom questioned why the insurance was so much higher for County vehicles than it is for individual automobile insurance premiums. Mr. Agnor explained that part of the reason is that the fleet insurance of over 50 police vehicles that is built into the fleet policy. He also said that this has been a bad year for accidents involving County-owned vehicles. Mr. Bowie mentioned that when he attended the NACO Legislative Conference, one of the subjects mentioned was the insurance costs for all of the counties. He learned that some counties had tremendous lawsuits, and that the insurance companies no longer make any money, as far as interest is concerned, on their deposits and are raising rates for everybody. He said that because of this, some counties are now solely self-insured or even uninsured. Mr. Agnor pointed out that public agency liability is suffering more than private sector lia- bility. He said that in some cases liability insurance is being cancelled and cann~ot even be purchased, or it is being reduced dramatically. Mr. Jones added that the insurance was $215 per vehicle last year, and it went to $715 this year. The $800 figure per vehicle was arrived at by adding a ten percent projection for next year. He said that VACO and VML are looking at self-insurance, and there was permissive legislation passed that the staff is considering. Mr. Tucker next called the Board's attention to the fact that "Vehicle Power and Equip- ment Supplies" is down basically because a high mileage vehicle has been taken out of service. "Fuel and Lubricants" has a reduction primarily due to an anticipated reduction in fuel costs. Mr. Tucker said that overall, the Zoning Department is showing only a 2.59 percent increase, which he considers very good. Re mentioned again that all of the start-up costs oi the Development Information Office are being covered in the current year's budget. Mr. Way offered motion to reduce line item 100101, "Compensation/Boards and Commissions from $3,000 to $2,000 and to adjust fringes accordingly. Mr. Bowie seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: 420 March 19, 1986 (Afternoon - Adjourned Meeting) (Page ~1 AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom, and Way. None. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the staff member that is being transferred from the Zoning Department will be working in the Development Information Office full-time, and Mr. Tucker answered, "yes." Mr. Lindstrom went on to ask how the Zoning Department can operate with one less person. Mr. Tucker replied that it will be a learning experience this next year. He said that this person already does a lot of coordination of duties. However, he feels it would be better to have all of these duties in one office. The staff is trying to figure out how backup for this new position can be provided. The staff is, also, currently working to reduce the number of inspections perfomed by zoning inspectors by shifting some of those inspections over to the Building Inspections Office. He said that it is not known at this time how many people will use this new office on a day-to-day basis, and it is possible that by next year the staff may have to report that by shifting this person to the Development Information Office it put too much of a burden on the other employees in the Zoning Depart- ment. But, the two offices are closely associated and hopefully backup can be provided for this new office without any problem. ~ One of Mr. Lindstrom's main concerns was that this office be established in such a way that assures that this person will be able to devote all of his time and energy to the position. He trusts that the staff has examined the situation and hopes that if this situa- tion does not work out, the staff will not wait until another budget cycle to take care of the problem. He is also concerned that the people in the Zoning Department may be overworked and may have need for this person to help with their regular duties. Mr. Agnor explained that the Zoning Department now has seven employees, with two field inspectors, two administrators and three clerical employees. The person who is being promoted to this position is now in a clerical position, and the staff feels that the Zoning Department has had an overload of staffing in the ratio of the number of people that are creating the paperwork and the number of people who are handling it. The staff believes that by shifting this person to a new position it will lighten the paperwork load in the Zoning Office. The staff also believes that this person can devote full time to the position. He pointed out that there will still be two clerical employees in the Zoning Office to serve four people. Mr. Bowie said that he is satisfied as far as the duties and backup personnel are concerned, but wonders about having two supervisors and two field workers in the Zoning Department. He thinks this sounds heavy on supervision, and believes that this and similar situations in other departments should be examined. He asked for the staff to come back to the Board in a year with further information. Mr. Lindstrom inquired if there had been a request for an additional field person for the Zoning Office which was not recommended by the staff. Mr. Agnor answered that Mr. Lindstrom was correct. He added that there are plans to make changes in the Zoning Office sc that it is not so heavily supervised. Mr. Tucker added that footing inspections are to become the responsibility of the Building Inspections Department so the building inspector can check the footings while he is there inspecting other work. Mr. Fisher said he has heard complaints from citizens that there have been two inspectors on the property at the same time. Mr. Fisher asked the status of work on the signs situation. He continues to see what appear to be violations. Mr. Tucker replied that Mr. Michael Tompkins, the Zoning Admin- istrator, has initiated an inventory of all signs and has attempted to categorize them so that they can be placed on the computer tracking system. When this is done, the staff will know what type of sign is on every piece of property. Mr. Fisher said this process has been going on for approximately two years, and he is getting impatient. He does not think very much is being done or there will be no real enforcement on the sign ordinance until another year has been spent putting the information into the computer. Mr. Tucker agreed that if there are direct violations, they will need to be checked out, but he also feels that an inventory has to be determined to figure out where violations exist. Mr. Fisher asked for a meeting with Mr. Tucker and Mr. Tompkins to discuss the sign problem. Mr. Lindstrom said that with the amount of growth and construction in the County the field inspections aspect of both the Zoning and Building Departments should not be under- staffed. He has felt for several years that there could be a problem handling all of these inspections. Now, with a position being taken away from the Zoning Department, he is deeply concerned. He understands that the staff is reorganizing, but it does bother him when there are not enough people to enforce regulations. He has not been comfortable with this budget in the past, and is less comfortable with this one. Mr. Fisher said he hopes the staff will keep the Board informed, and will not wait a year if there are problems. Mr. Tucker answered that he will give the Board an update of the Development Information Office when he makes the quarterly review of that departmental budget. Mr. Fisher asked that this be done at least for the first two quarterly reviews. Visitor's Bureau. Requested - $40,400; Recommended - $40,400. Mr. AHnor reDorted that there was an error in the budget description which showed the budget request and the recommendation as the same figure. He said the request was actually for $41,408, and the recommendation for $40,400. He pointed out that the request shows a 9.9 percent increase. That is intended to reflect a two year increase, because last year there was no increase granted. The Visitor's Bureau has been able to generate some of its own revenue and not rely on the City, County or Chamber's contributions.. The Bureau will con- tinue to do that, but through the remodeling, the use of the theatre has been lost, as well as a portion of the lobby, which were sources of revenue. The County's and City's March 19, 1986 (Afternoon - Adjourned Meeting) ( Page , 3 ) 4 21 increases are being requested to offset this loss of revenue and to offset an increase in operational expenses. Because the Visitor's Bureau Management Committee is still working on the future of this Bureau, his recommendation is that the Board fund the amount shown, but the Board needs to recognize also that the amount could change when the Committee finishes its work. He mentioned that if the amount needs to be increased, the Contingency Reserve will have to be used. Mrs. Cooke asked how the theatre and lobby space will be used. Mr. Agnor answered that the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation took over the theater when they purchased the building. Mr. Fisher added that there are two theaters, and one will be continued as a theater with films about Monticello. The other one will be turned into a museum. He said that he and Mr. Way have been to several meetings about the Visitor's Bureau. The first item consid- ered was to either discontinue or change the Visitor's Bureau. No final report has been prepared because there is now a Convention Bureau investigation which is ongoing. He believes the general consensus is that the Visitor's Bureau should continue, but no decision has been made concerning its funding. Mr. Way agreed with Mr. Fisher's statements. Mr. Lindstrom suggested freezing this allocation again this year as the talks are con- tinuing. He said that the backup material indicates that the Chamber's contributions have not changed. He does not want to increase the appropriation because he believes there is some incentive on the part of other members of the Committee for delaying a decision. Mr. Fisher personally favored leaving the appropriation at the same dollar figure as the current year. This can be changed if some other recommendation is made in the future. He believes there is more incentive for the Committee members to come to an agreement if the appropri- ation is left unchanged. Mr. Way agreed with Mr. Fisher and it is his understanding that if conclusions by the Committee were not reached by this budget period, then additional appropri ations would have to wait for a year. Mr. Bowie then offered motion to leave this category at the current level of $36,730, which is a reduction from the $40,000 recommended by staff. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom, and Way. None. Legal Aid Society (CALAS). Requested - $10,764; Reconmnended - $6,760. Mr. Tucker reported that the Legal Aid Society provides free civil legal services to low income persons in Planning District Ten, which is done through five direct service programs. The Society also has a Community Legal Education Program that provides information to citi- zens about the legal system and its effects on individuals. The Society has instituted a tOll free incoming Watts line for rural Albemarle clients living in Area Code 703. Mr. Tucker next discussed the number of people served in Planning District Ten through each of these programs for FY 1984-85. This year CALAS is requesting $10,764, which is a 66 percent increase. He described the local share formula, and said that Louisa, Nelson and Greene Counties have not participated in this program. The Program Review Committee recommends full funding. He mentioned that the Legal Services Corporation of Virginia has requested funding from the General Assembly and the Virginia Law Foundation, and if realized, these funds would be used to reduce the funding request for the fourth attorney position. He said that Mr. McIntosh will have some additional information as to the outcome of those requests throughout the State. He pointed out that the County Executive's Office is not supportive of the additional costs associated with the additional staff and is recommending only a four percent increase over last year's request which amounts to $6,760. The staff is hopeful that the efforts to obtain additional funding through the state have been successful. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the efforts to obtain additional funding is the reason for the County Executive's recommendation to reduce the funding request. Mr. Agnor said his staff had no objection to the Program Review Committee's recommendations, but felt that since the funding from the state is unknown at this time, only a cost of living increase would be recommended. Since Board members had no further questions for the staff, Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Peter McIntosh to address the Board. Mr. McIntosh reported that the Legal Aid Society was successful in getting more money from the State. He said the need is not associated with Gramm-Rudman. There is a freeze on funding for 1986 from 1985 that is the-result of the Gramm-Rudman Act, but it is not the reason for the request for increases. This will be taken care of by eliminating some staff positions. The elimination of the Fellowship was made independent of Gramm-Rudman in the summer. The Legal Aid Society has been successful for the past ten years in competing for four fellowship positions in the State of Virginia among the 14 Legal Aid Offices, so his office has had one of these attorney positions each year. He stated that this is the attorney position that will be lost next year. He next went over the funding that the Legal Aid Society receives and said that the General Assembly voted a $200,000 increase for the entire state which translates to an increase per fiscal year for his office of approximately $6,000. He mentioned that IOTA will not reach a decision until May, but his office has been assured of $13,000 as a minimum. He said that he listed the entire salary and fringe benefit cost for the fourth attorney position without any expectation that funding would be received for it, but he needed to do this to justify the position to the United Way Board. He went on to say that he did talk to Mr. Russell Otis, in Nelson County, and he was very optimistic and does expect that his Board will give Legal Aid some funding. Mr. Otis did not have a firm figure in mind, but Mr. McIntosh believes it will be approximately what Fluvanna is funding for Legal Aid. He said that in September the Legal Services Corporation gave his office a one-time grant which amounted to $5,098. Mr. Fisher said that it is very difficult to follow Mr. McIntosh's data, and he asked that he explain the deficits and the amount requested from the County. Mr. McIntosh 422 March 19, 1986 (Afternoon - Adjourned Meeting) (Paqe 4) responded that Legal Aid is looking at a deficit for the fourth attorney position of $4,348. He said that he is asking for $1,500 above the County Executive's recommendation. Mr. Lindstrom asked if it would be a reasonable approach for the County to fund this $1,500 contingent upon Legal Aid's success in getting other funding for this position, but not appropriate the money until the other funding actually is received. Mr. McIntosh answered that Mr. Lindstrom's approach would be helpful, and he should be able to tell the Board before July if all parts of the funding package have been approved. Mr. Way asked if the $1,500 that Mr. McIntosh is requesting is in addition to the County Executive's recommendation. Mr. McIntosh answered, "yes." Mr. Lindstrom said that this represents a significant reduction from the original request that was supported by the Program Review Committee because of the additional funding from the state. He stated that it is important for the community that there be access for low-income individuals to the legal system. He has occasionally received requests for services that he cannot afford to provide because the clients could not pay for them. He has referred these people to the Legal Aid Office. He said that the Bar, itself, has recognized the importance of this to the extent that there have been more than 100 attorneys who have regularly volunteered their time free of charge to this service. He mentioned that the staff recommendation was for funding of the request because of the significance of the contribution of this organization. The program also meets all of the recommendations of the Program Review Committee. He moved that the County Executive's recommendation be funded with an additional $1,500 to be held until the fiscal year begins to be dependent upon whether there is full funding from the other sources as projected in Mr. McIntosh's memo. Mr. Way seconded the motion. He then asked Mr. McIntosh if the addition of the Watts line has helped people in rural Albemarle. Mr. McIntosh responded that the Watts line is helpful to rural Albemarle now, but it took approximately five months before people realized that the line was available. Mr. Bowie supported the County Executive's recommendation. Mr. Lindstrom thinks that this is a long-standing and important program, and the Board has a responsibility to provide minimum services. He believes that what has been requested is minimum. Mrs. Cooke has no problem with giving the citizens of Albemarle County the support and comfort they need. However, in view of the fact that there are localities that are not supporting this Society, she will support the County Executive's recommendation. Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. McIntosh what will happen to the money if other counties do not fund the program. Mr. McIntosh replied that in the past there have been no restrictions on Legal Aid's services. His Board felt that the people who are funding the budget should have first claim on the services. Even though some of the funding is coming from the state for the fourth attorney position, all of the cases for 1986-87 that will be handled by this attorney will be restricted to .those jurisdictions that are contributing this funding. Roll was called at this time and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. Mr. Bowie and Mrs. Cooke. Mr. Fisher commented that the figure for the Legal Aid Society has been amended to $8,260 with the conditions stated. Jefferson Area United Transportation (JAUNT). Requested - $18,073; Recommended - $18,073. Mr. Tucker reported that JAUNT is a public service corporation owned jointly by the City of Charlottesville, Albemarle County and Nelson County, and has served Albemarle since 1975. Ridership in Albemarle in the fiscal year 1984-85 totalled 34,000 plus trips. This figure reflects an increase of 15 percent over the previous fiscal year. The request this year fro~ JAUNT is for $18,073 and is a 1.7 percent increase over last year's request. Mr. Tucker went on to explain the local share formula and said the formula was changed this fiscal year and requires a larger portion of the local contribution to match grant requests, but the increase affects Charlottesville to a much greater, degree than Albemarle. JAUNT is recommended for full funding by both the Program Review Committee and the County Executive's staff. Ms. Linda Wilson spoke to the Board next and said that the JAUNT staff will be making a bus lease program available to county communities, and she handed out information to the Board on this program. She introduced Ramona Karam and said Ms. Karam would be implementing the program. She said that JAUNT has just had its review by the University of Virginia on evaluation of its services. She said the review looks very good, but the agencies are having some problems. JAUNT will be working with an agency committee to overcome those. She then handed out information on the evaluation. Mr. Way stated that he serves as the Board's representative to the JAUNT Board and also serves on JAUNT's Executive Committee and Review Committee, and he said that he supports the request and the recommendations that were made. Mr. Lindstrom asked if a community that accepts the community bus program, would have to pay for the gas and schedule the trips, etc. He then asked if someone could volunteer to drive. Ms. Wilson answered that a volunteer could drive the bus, but the community would have to pay for the gas and schedule the trips. She went on to say that insurance stip- ulations are that JAUNT will have to maintain careful control over the drivers. She said that JAUNT would hire the drivers with or without pay, but the community woUld have to fund the paid drivers. She said the bus lease program was patterned after a program in Tidewater which is in a suburban area. It has never been tried in rural areas. March 19, 1986 (Afternoon - Adjourned Meeting)~' ~ 4'23 Mr. Fisher asked if there were any suggestions for changing JAUNT's budget. none. There were Education: Regular School Fund; Federal Programs; Community Education; Facilities Refurbishment; Textbook Fund; McIntire Trust Fund; School Lunch Program; Tips Program; Grants; Debt Service. Mr. Overstreet reviewed the proposed school budget with the Board. He said that the School Board established some priorities when the budget was developed this year. Those priorities are salaries, transportation, needs for the school system, maintenance for school facilities, instructional program needs and instructional materials. In the proposed School Board budget, there is an 8.2 percent average salary increase for teachers. That would give each teacher approximately a $1,600 raise. The reason the Board elected to go for that type of a salary schedule, rather than affecting the scale in some other fashion, was to be able to significantly impact the beginning of the scale as well as the top. The beginning of the scale needs to be increased because the County is not competitive in that area. On the other hand, there is a problem with teachers who have reached the top of the scale. Mr. Overstreet does not like to add steps to a salary scale, and this seemed to be the best way to create the impact for the top and bottom of the scale and do it in an equitable fashion. Mr. Way asked if the teachers on the upper end of the scale will get an increase. He asked also if it will be as substantial as that given other teachers. Mr. Overstreet replied that the only way the teachers at the top of the scale could have gotten an increase prev- iously would have been to increase the scale, because there were no further steps. He remembered one year a five percent increase in the scale was given to teachers as well as a step increase which equated to ten percent. In that same year, the teachers at the top of the scale got only five percent. When the School Board developed the budget with the 8.2 percent increase the General Assembly was still in session, and there was uncertainty that the ten percent average teacher salary mandate would be approved. Mr. Overstreet said that the ten percent mandate is now in effect, and the school system will need some relief to deal with this, because while the incentive funds will be given the first year, if the ten percent is not scheduled for the second year, the state will penalize the school system $530,000. He supported Mr. Agnor's proposal of trying to fund the additional 1.8 percent by allocating money from the Contingency Reserve. Mr. Way asked Mr. Overstreet if the amount of money that is suggested to be allocated from the Contingency Reserve is $230,000. Mr. Overstreet answered that $230,000 is the amount that was estimated, with fixed costs, in January. It really depends upon what the percentage is and how many new positions are funded in the budget. Because of these things, the amount of money could vary, but it would not go any higher than $230,000. As far as non-teaching positions are concerned, Mr. Overstreet commented that they have been budgeted for a five percent increase. This includes administrators. In speaking about trans- portation, Mr. Overstreet said that the School Board is trying to maintain the regular replacement schedule for school buses. This schedule requires 15 replacement buses per year. The 15 buses that are in this budget include 13 regular buses and two buses for handicapped students. The School Board has slated a ten percent increase for instructional materials and supplies. Mr. Overstreet said there has been no increase for instructional materials and supplies for three years, and the cost of these materials has increased every year. Mr. Overstreet highlighted some of the instructional programs and said that a majority of them are on the new programs list. He said that most of the teaching positions are driven by enrollment. There are six new classroom positions due to an increase of 117 students. Other instructional programs include one teacher for high school enrichment for the "Gifted and Talented" program and a position for "English as a Second Language." Mr. Overstreet mentioned that the ESL program is a growing program with the continuing number of foreign speaking students coming into the County. There are three positions budgeted for Elementary Fine Arts. He said that the school system has never been able to get this area moving adequately, so instead of trying to implement the whole program, they will start it with these three positions. Mr. Overstreet said that revenues and resources have been identified for staff develop- ment training of teachers. He said a very small percentage of the budget is spent on this area, but he thinks it is important and should continue through the years. Mr. Overstreet next mentioned the Burley Middle School Library. He said that when Burley became a middle school, the library did not receive the supply of books that was expected. Because of this, money is budgeted for that library. An Assistant Principal is also requested for Stone-Robinson Elementary because of the staff utilization ratios that have been developed, and because larger schools with over 450 students are assigned assistant principals to help with instructional coordination and other activities. Mr. Overstreet stated that the Debate Team is a very strong program, and it has not had a lot of budgetary assistance from the School Board. He thinks that the Team needs and deserves this support. The substitute teacher scale is proposed to be increased to $40 per day for degree people and non-degree people. Mr. Overstreet said that the County has problems with the substitute program because of geography and competition. He said that the County's competi- tion pays a higher rate than the County and the substitutes do not have to travel as far. The County's substitutes are sometimes asked to go long distances. Next Mr. Overstreet discussed the Textbook Fund. He said that the voluminous increase in the cost of textbooks and the collection rate are the reasons that there will be a shortfall next year in the Textbook Fund. Even increasing the rental fee to $25 per student, there will be a shortfall of approximately $25,000. 424 March 19, 1986 (Afternoon - Adjourned Meeting) (Page 6) The School Board has targeted the maintenance area for significant attention. Mr. Overstreet said that facilities have to be maintained. He said there are about $75,000,000 in assets for school facilities. In addition to the routine maintenance budget, the school division has proposed to budget some building refurbishment needs which would total approximately $470,000. The staff decided, however, to defer $247,000, which would leave $224,000 budgeted for minimal needs. The County Executive's proposed budget does not address those needs, but Mr. Agnor and Mr. Overstreet have been trying to find a way to deal with this situation. He believes Mr. Agnor has a suggestion for the Board. Mr. Overstreet said with the $340,000 in routine maintenance and the refurbishment costs, excluding those that have been deferred, would total $565,000 for those needs. That is three-quarters of one percent of the total school facility assets or one and one-half percent of the total budget. He checked the state average for maintenance throughout the school systems in Virginia and the percentage runs approximately 2.1 percent per year. Mr. Overstreet told the Board members that the things that he had discussed with them at this meeting are the things that the School Board had identified to be addressed in the budget. He said that the Board tried to maintain the things that were already there and in some areas make cutbacks. He said there are new staffing utilization ratios for the secon- dary schools for the first time which will go into effect next year. He added that more than six elementary positions are needed for next year, but some positions are being reduced at the secondary levels, and specifically at the middle school level. Mr. Overstreet stated that with this proposal, the whole budget has an increase of approximately $3,300,000 or nine percent. The revenue to fund this budget is proposed to be approximately $1,600,000 in state aid which is an increase of over 16 percent, and $1,228,000 in local contributions which is a seven percent increase over the current level of local contributions. In addition to that, the School Board is asking that the school system use $153,000 that had been targeted as a fund balance surplus at the end of the year to carry over into next year as part of the revenues. Mr. Overstreet said that the school system will try to resolve its need for the textbook supplement of $25,000 by addressing this issue this year with this year's School Fund Carry-over Balance. Mr. Way wanted to know why there is a problem with the Textbook Fund. Mr. Overstreet stated that the problem is three-fold. He said that different types of books come up for adoption each year on a six year cycle. The idea is to build the fund up during the interim years before the heavy adoption years take place. That concept was destroyed due to infla- tion and the poor collection rate. The reserve was spent at that time to get the books that were needed. It is also getting harder and harder to collect textbook fees, and the higher the rental, the harder it is to collect. He said that the cost of textbooks has increased and is more than the rate of inflation of other materials and goods. Mr. Overstreet said he is very pleased with the way the School Board and staff developed the budget. He said there were a lot of unusual circumstances to deal with. He mentioned that a team approach was used, particularly at the management level, and he was pleased with the cooperation, hard work and rational decision-making that evolved on the part of the whole administration. He believes this is a solid and reasonable budget which has already been refined and brought to the Board of Supervisors in a very straight-forward, honest and sincere fashion. Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Overstreet if he would list the new programs by title. Mr. Overstreet responded that the list of new programs is in the budget and the total cost is shown in the memo. He said the only thing that is not in the School Board's proposed budget, would be the amount that is required to increase teachers' salaries by an average of ten percent. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the difference between Mr. Overstreet's requested budget and Mr. Agnor's recommended budget is $400,000. Mr. Overstreet answered that it is $524,000. He said there was a discrepancy in terms of whether Debt Service should be calculated, because Debt Service is reducing this year, and Mr. Agnor's recommendation did not include anything for the textbook supplement or the refurbishment expenditures. Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Overstreet if the $524,000 difference includes credit for the $150,000 Carry-over funds, and Mr. Overstreet answered, "yes." Mr. Fisher wanted to make sure that it was clear to everyone that if there isn't a Carry-over balance of $150,000, then the money will not be in the School Board's budget next year. Mr. Overstreet answered that everyone understood that. Mr. Way asked if the $524,000 includes the 1.8 percent funding needed to raise the teachers' salaries to the ten percent level, and Mr. Overstreet answered, "no." Mr. Lindstrom said the $524,000 also does not reflect whatever benefit there might be b replacing retiring teachers at the top of the pay scale with teachers hired at a lower salary level. Mr. Overstreet replied that he believes the figures for the replacement of teachers are much more accurate this year. He said the school system has had several years to look at this situation, and it feels comfortable with the pattern that has been set. Mr. Lindstrom asked the amount of the total School Board budget savings last year. Mr. Overstreet responded that it was in the $300,000 range, but not all of it was due to the breakage of teachers. Mr. Papenfuse added that $225,000 was due to breakage of teachers only. Mr. Lindstrom then asked how much is estimated for the breakage of teachers in the budget for next year. Mr. Papenfuse said there is no factor for the retiring teacher being replaced by a teacher with less experience. The factor for the new positions has been reduced down to what has been experienced for hiring new teachers. Three years ago $100,000 was budgeted as a breakage figure, but it was not budgeted this year because, if this is realized next year, and the ten percent salary adjustment is met, it would have to be applied back through staff development or stipends, etc. March 19, 1986 (Afternoon - Adjourned Meeting) 425 Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Papenfuse if the beginning salary figure has been adjusted, and if so how much. Mr. Papenfuse replied that the salary figure has been adjusted for the new positions. The figure in this budget is $17,834 and last year it was approximately $21,000. Mr. Fisher asked what this budget is based upon in regard to the pupil count. Mr. Papenfuse said that the ADM (Average Daily Membership) is 8850 and the enrollment this year is 8800. He thinks 100 students will be added in actual enrollment. Mr. Fisher asked what ADM is projected for next year, and Mr. Papenfuse responded that it is being projected at 8850. Mr. Fisher said it seems to him that there is $524,000 that is not covered by the School Board budget plus the amount of money needed to meet the ten percent mandate for teachers' salaries. This would bring the total that is not covered by the School Board budget to $758,000. Mr. Overstreet agreed with Mr. Fisher's statements. Mr. Agnor added that if the Textbook Fund is funded from the school system's own Carry-over balance, approximately $25,000 can be subtracted from the $758,000. Mr. Lindstrom commented that to get the extra money from the state, the County will have to give the teachers the ten percent increase to their salaries. He asked how much will be gained by this transaction in this biennium. Mr. Overstreet said that the first year the County will get incentive money which is $146 per pupil, and this will not be taken away. If the ten percent is not budgeted, however, the state will withhold $530,000 next spring. Mr. Lindstrom clarified Mr. Overstreet's statement by saying that to get the $530,000, the County will have to pay whatever is necessary to meet the ten percent increase in teachers' salaries this year and next year. Mr. Overstreet said it would cost approximately $3,000,000 to meet the ten percent increase for the whole biennium. Mr. Tolbert added that 8.2 percent for teachers' salaries has already been budgeted, so this year the County would have to spend approximately $200,000 more. He said that approxi- mately $250,000 will have to be spent next year to take care of the ten percent mandate, which means that it will take approximately $490,000 over the next two years to go to the ten percent increases for teachers. Mr. Bowie wondered what will happen in the third, fourth and fifth years if the state decides not to give any more money and the County has 20 percent higher teacher salaries. He said he also wanted to make some comments on the improvements in the exploratory program this year. He said there are still too many classes of less than ten pupils, but the information available for next year indicates that there will be no classes of less than ten. It appears ~o him that one or two teachers can be eliminated if this is done. Mr. Bowie also commented that now there is not a block of teachers teaching six children exploratories all day long. The teachers are now teaching five regular classes and one exploratory class. He thinks this is a tremendous improvement. Mr. Agnor stated that the Textbook Fund is listed as a part of the new and expanded programs, but the Refurbishments Fund was a surprise. He is certain that it must be a lack of understanding and communications in relation to how the Refurbishments Fund was handled last year. He said the refurbishments program was put into the Capital Improvements Program where it was reviewed by the Planning Commission and by this Board. It got to be very cumbersome, because-there was a long list of little projects. He said the Commission asked questions that had no bearing on the Comprehensive Plan or the planning process, and the Board discussed those questions and finally decided two years ago, that all of these things should be put back into the School Operations budget. Last year, a request was made for $122,000 in facilities refurbishments. In addition, there was $94,000 of one-time expen- diture types of costs in the school system. In addition, $225,000 was funded to the system in this current year's budget from Carry-over money to take care of one-time items that would not recur in the operating budget and to catch up the refurbishments program so it could be put into the school's operating budget in the 1986-87 year. When the request was made this year for $229,000, Mr. Agnor was surprised. At that time, he had recommended that $600,000 be allocated initially for basic operations and when the newly expanded programs came to the Board, Mr. Agnor recommended that half of them be funded. He did not know that there were any more school refurbishments programs to be funded. Mr. Agnor said that in trying to balance the costs out of the $930,000 additional allocation being considered for the school system, if the Refurbishments Program is dropped, the school system will get $807,000 next year. He said that Mr. Overstreet requested that Debt Service be used for the refurbishments program. In October, Mr. Agnor had informed the Board that Debt Services would drop, and the City Revenue Sharing Fund would rise and these two items would offset each other. Mr. Agnor said he and Mr. Overstreet have now discussed the refurbishments situation, and Mr. Agnor feels that the list of needs will continue since there are so many buildings involved. Mr. Agnor told Mr. Overstreet that he thought that the refurbishments should be divided. All other departments take any project that is not repetitive in nature and exceeds $5,000 and put it into the CIP plan. Anything that is less than $5,000 would be a part of the school system's operating budget. Mr. Agnor thinks it is too complicated to go through this process this year, but for 1987-88 budget preparations, he believes this should be considered as a principal process of getting funds for these refurbishments into the school system's operating budget so they will not need special appropriations each year. For this year, he thinks that it would be a formidable task to deal with the approximately $500,000 in enrollment driven types of costs. Mr. Agnor recommended, at this time, that the Refur- bishments Program be funded for one more year with Carry-over funds, and in 1987-88, the projects be put into the CIP program only if there are projects that exceed $5,000 each. The remainder would then become a part of the school system's operating budget. Mr. Agnor said this is typical of lots of agencies, and not only the school system, because it is easier to cut maintenance costs than it is to cut salaries or programs. He explained that this is why there is a $400,000 list of refurbishments that is growing and has accumulated over a number of years. He believes the refurbishments program will be taken care of in the future, as the recommendations of the School Facilities Committee get funded in the CIP program. March 19, 1986 (Afternoon - Adjourned Meeting) (Paqe 8) Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Agnor how much of an excess there is now in the school system's budget. Mr. Agnor answered that the proposed school budget has a shortfall of between $275,000 and $290,000. He said that figure does not include the state mandate for teachers' salaries. His recommendation is that the three and one-half percent and the five percent disparity need to be reconciled. If the disparity is reconciled at three and one-half per- cent, then some of those funds can be redirected toward mandated needs, and could certainly be redirected toward the $275,000. This would, however, be the decision of the School Board. Mr. Lindstrom asked why there is a five percent increase in salaries for administrative and classified employees. Mr. Overstreet answered that the administrative positions have been falling behind as the rate of increases have been higher in other categories, especially teachers' salaries. The overall effect has been to bring the average administrative salaries closer to the teachers. This brings about a competitive problem of attracting high quality leadership people, and especially affects the promotion of people within the County. He gave an example of a teacher at the top of the pay scale who makes $400 more than an entry level assistant principal. Mr. Lindstrom said he understood that the philosophy of the School Board was to increas~ the instructional level so that teachers are getting paid well and will want to stay in the teaching field. He said that if the gap continues to widen between administrative and teachers' salaries, teachers will continue to leave the field. Mr. Overstreet said that the school system needs to get out of the "lockstep" mentality of teachers' schedules and provid~ other means for them to make significant improvement in their salaries and in their status without necessarily getting into administration. He said that the best administrators have been good teachers and come out of the teachers' ranks. He said it is a bad situation because the school system wants good administrators, but it does not like to take them out the teaching ranks. At this point, it becomes the choice of the teacher involved as to whether he or she wants to become an administrator. Then, he thinks salary becomes an important part of making that decision. Mr. Lindstrom mentioned the two step merit plan for administration, and he thinks this would address the need to create incentives for high quality administrators. He asked Mr. Overstreet to describe the administrative merit plan. Mr. Overstreet stated that the first step in the incentive program for administrators provides for a two and one-half percent increase in salary. He said there is nothing automatic about this program, and that this increase occurs if the performance is satisfactory. There is another merit level beyond that of two and one-half percent. Also, there is a top tier that does not provide a lot of money, but gives the Superintendent some flexibility in addressing top level performances. This is a nonvested bonus program. Mr. Lindstrom went over the administrative incentive program with Mr. Overstreet. He asked if a person gives a satisfactory performance, would he get a two step increase and would this increase the amount to five percent. Mr. Overstreet answered that Mr. Lindstrom is correct. Mr. Lindstrom then sa:Ld that Mr. Overstreet can award an additional amount of money if he feels that someone has done an outstanding job. He asked if there was a set amount of money for this merit level. Mr. Overstreet answered that the amount of money has been designated as five percent of the pool that is available. He said that an individual could get a significant increase, or it could be a very limited amount. He expects the amount would be divided equally between those who qualify. Mr. Lindstrom inquired if Mr. Overstreet knew how much of a pool of money was available this year for this incentive increase. Mr. Overstreet answered that the whole merit pool is $90,000. He went on to say that the other classified employees are also slated for a five percent increase. In that case, the staff did look at supply and demand, market value and a number of factors. It was concluded that since other classified employees did not even have access to a merit plan, they would be best deserving of a five percent increase in salary, rather than three and one-half. Mr. Lindstrom asked if Mr. Overstreet had any idea how much difference in money it would be if the salaries of classified personnel and administrators were dropped to three and one-half percent. Mr. Overstreet replied that dropping both of these categories of salaries to three and one-half percent would make a difference of approximately $100,000. Mr. Bowie stated that he has trouble with the classified and administrative groups. It seems to him that for years the Board has been saying that there should only be one system. There is even a joint personnel director who was hired to bring everyone under one system. But, still there are two groups. He thinks that administrative and classified personnel who work for general government and the school system should be under the same classification system. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Robert Taylor, Chairman of the School Board, if he had anything to add. Mr. Taylor said about everything had been said, but as the meeting progresses, he is sure there will be cause for input. Mr. Fisher said that the problems that have been brought out may require the generation of a new school budget. Mr. Taylor mentioned that there is a different atmosphere with the way the School Board and the school administration approached the budget process this year. He said there is no "sugar coating" or "fat" in this budget. The budget that the School Board decided upon is a very realistic request based on the school system's needs. The staff took $2,500,000 of new and expanded program requests and refined those down to $950,000. The School Board took the original proposal that Mr. Agnor made of the $950,000 revenue increase and decided that it could not ask for more than 65 to 70 percent of that amount if the approach was to be realistic and communications with the Board of Supervisors kept consistent. Therefore, the amount was then reduced to $653,000. This amount of money represents those programs which the school division needs to keep the system from declining. He recognizes the Board of Supervisors' problems, and believes there is some legitimate question between the three and one-half and five percent salary adjustments. If that question has to be addressed, he asked the Supervisors to recognize that the classified personnel do not have access to a merit pool. Mr. Fisher commented that the Board of March 19, 1986 (Afternoon - Adjourned Meeting) ( ps_ge 9) _ 427 Supervisors has asked the school system many times to create a merit pool. Mr. Taylor answered that he understands Mr. Fisher's concern, but he said that the School Board cannot handle every problem each year. Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Agnor how many years it has been since the Supervisors requested the school system to create a merit pool for classified personnel. Mr. Agnor answered that the request was first made in January of 1981. Mr. Taylor responded that in the two years that he has been on the School Board, the School Board has tried to do as much as it can, but that is not one of the things that has been accomplished. He said that this inequity cannot be changed for next year. Mr. Fisher said he thinks the classified people should stay where they are on the salary schedule until the School Board can work out a merit pay plan for them. Mr. Lindstrom said he believes that unless the Board of Supervisors takes the initiative now to require a merit plan for classified personnel, it will never happen. He said that the Supervisors have tried to establish a realistic merit pay plan for general government employees, and yet the Super- visors are being asked to fund a totally different system for the schools. Mr. Lindstrom added that the Supervisors are getting justifiable criticism from general government employ- ees about this situation. He thinks that it is now time for the School Board to get criti- cized by its employees so that a joint system can be created. Mr. Taylor said he knows the Supervisors asked the School Board for commonality of pay among its employees. He said the School Board does recognize this request. He suggested, however, that three and one-half percent is not enough of a pay raise this year because of inflation. He thinks five percent is more realistic, and said that the latest Kiplinger Letter states that six percent is the average middle level managers salary adjustment that can be expected in industry this year. He said that a five percent increase would also help the school system be more competitive in its hiring practices. Mr. Lindstrom commented that he could agree with Mr. Taylor's comments concerning inflation a lot easier than he could agree to effectively fund a merit system through a five percent increase. Mr. Taylor answered that he was not trying to fund a merit system, and does not know if a system can be worked out for the classified personnel. He said that he is not going to promise the Supervisors that the School Board will work on this system next year, because it is not one of its top priorities. He will do everything he can, however, to look at the situation and see what can be accomplished. He suggests that the Supervisors consider that the School Board came to them with $653,000 worth of legitimate requests, and he hopes that, in a year when there will probably be surplus money, that before action is taken to reduce taxes or to do anything else, that the Supervisors will remember that the school system needs those dollars to fund school programs and keep moving ahead. He asked the Board of Supervisors to please consider the entire request that the School Board has made. Mr. Lindstrom stated that he has spent a lot of time on the School Board's budget and the only area of disagreement that he can find is not with the new and expanded programs. He thinks these programs are good and justifiable. He has problems with the three and one-half percent and the five percent differential. He does not feel that there is disagreement, however, about the ten percent salary mandate versus the 8.2 percent. He thinks the Supervi- sors will just have to decide how to cope with this problem. He also commented that he is not very happy with the merit system that has been established for administrators. Mr. Fisher asked if fringe benefits can be transferred into salaries in order to meet the ten percent mandate. Mr. Overstreet said the County has a good benefit package in calculating the median salary or percentages of increase, but the staff is not allowed to calculate the effect of the benefits in that package. There is an option of taking a benefit and turning it into its cash benefit, and giving it back to the employee. This employee would have to have health insurance and retirement is mandatory, so he or she would have to take the money and buy these things. The difference for the County would be that those dollars could be counted as compensation and show the median salary as being higher than it actually is. Mr. Fisher then asked how many dollars can be affected that way. Mr. Overstreet replied that the health insurance would generate $688 per person. If this was done for just the teaching staff, it would generate approximately $430,000. He said the retirement is more complex because the VSRS system will not allow the County to do this, except for employees hired since 1980. He said that five percent of the cumulative salary base for the number of teachers that have been hired since 1980, would be $292,000. He added that this benefit arrangement could be done, but it would be troublesome to have some employees in the County having to buy their own insurance and retirement, while other employees are having these benefits paid for them. Mr. Bowie pointed out that teachers have a different pay schedule from other employees and get annual contracts. He said that the contract would have to be changed, but it would not be as bad as trying to work out something for the long-term employee. Mr. Overstreet recommended that the Board hold back on transferring fringe benefits into salaries next year. He said, though, that it might be a wise idea to examine this as a possibility for the second year of the biennium. Mr. Fisher said the Blue Cross/Blue Shield insurance could be split with half being paid this year directly and next year all of it could be paid directly. In this way, perhaps the ten percent salary mandate could be met each year. Mr. Lindstrom wanted to know what would happen to the group of employees if the County stopped paying for their insurance and retirement premiums. Would the employees be required to have these benefits, and would there be payroll deductions? Mr. Overstreet answered that the employees would not be required to participate in Blue Cross Blue Shield, because they could buy whatever insurance they wanted. However, VSRS is mandatory. Mr. Lindstrom then wondered if the plan for the employees to buy their own insurance had the potential to affect the County's group rate. Mr. Agnor replied that he did not think this would affect the County's group rate. He said it would reduce the number of participants, but he does not believe it would affect the experience rate. He added that it would probably depend on how many people decided to get insurance elsewhere. He said there are approximately 1500 428 March 19, 1986 (Afternoon - Adjourned Meeting) (PaGe 10) employees in the group plan, and 630 of them are classroom teachers. Mr. Overstreet pointed out that if employees were given cash to buy their own benefits, they would be taxed on that money. He recommended that this plan be held back and considered only as a reserve solution for the second year of the biennium. Mr. Agnor stated that he and Mr. Overstreet have had many conversations about what is called the "Cafeteria Plan." This plan provides for so many dollars per employee per year for fringe benefits and then gives them a choice of taking that money and buying the benefit packages best suited to them. He said that there is a health maintenance program here in Charlottesville that would give an alternative to the KeyCare Blue-Cross Program in the near future. He mentioned that there are other "Cafeteria Plans" for dental insurance, disabilit~ coverage, etc. Mr. Fisher thanked Mr. Agnor and Mr. Overstreet for the information. He said that it gives him some idea of how difficult it would be to go to a different benefit plan. Mr. Overstreet asked Mr. Fisher if the Board was going to try to make its final deliberations on the budget today. Mr. Fisher answered that the Board would like to finish with the budget at this meeting, and that the School Board and school officials could stay if they wished. Mr. Overstreet then said that if the Board feels that it cannot fund the five percent for non- teaching personnel, he would hope that the money recovered would be permitted to be put back into instructional programs and not directed into the teachers' salaries. He believes it could get to be a morale problem to have one group of employees believing they are helping fund increases in salaries for another group of employees. Mr. Henley mentioned that he had understood Mr. Overstreet to say that if the teachers had to pay for their own health insurance, Mr. Overstreet believes that everyone should have to do the same thing. He disagrees because the teachers are a separate group from other County employees. Mr. Overstreet replied that he only mentioned this because of accounting and personnel problems that would occur if benefits were handled differently for separate groups of employees. Mr. Bowie asked if the benefit plan is deferred for a year, if Mr. Overstreet feels that the school budget can handle the shortfall that is occurring because of the ten percent state mandate. Mr. Overstreet answered that Mr. Agnor's proposal of funding the facilities refur- bishments outside of the budget would reduce the budget cut to approximately $275,000, but the school budget would also take care of the Textbook Fund. He said, however, that it would be difficult to find another $200,000 to fund the ten percent state mandate. Mr. Lindstrom wondered if the salary increase for teachers, resulting from the ten percent mandate, could be handled by the school budget if Mr. Agnor's recommendation is followed, and if the balance of the request is funded with the exception of the five percent raise for classified per- sonnel. Mr. Overstreet replied that if Mr. Agnor's proposal is accepted and the balance of the request that the School Board has made is funded, and if the salary increase for classi- fied personnel is reduced to three and one-half percent, he would recommend that the School Board try to fund the increase for teachers' salaries. The Board took a short recess at 3:10 p.m. Mr. Fisher called the meeting back to order and said that Mr. Overstreet had requested an opportunity to amend a statement that he made earlier in the meeting. Mr. Overstreet said that he had misinterpreted the merit pay plan for administrators. The first step of the merit pay plan is zero, which is a frozen salary. The second step is the general increase, if work performance is satisfactory. The next step is a merit one level which would carry one step on the salary scale. The only thing beyond the merit one level is the Superintendent's discretionary bonus. Mr. Bowie asked if an administrator on the zero step would not get the general raise, and Mr. Overstreet answered that, at the zero step, the general increase is not given. Mr. Bowie then asked if, realistically, any administrator would be on the zero step. Mr. Overstreet answered that this is the first year for this merit pay plan for administrators, but if someone does not have a satisfactory work performance, he or she would be on the zero step. Mr. Agnor mentioned that he had received a couple of questions asking about the funding of refurbishments from Reserve funds. It was his original recommendation that refurbishments be funded from the Carry over balance of the General Fund, which this year is all going into the Capital Improvements Fund. Refurbishments should have been included in the Capital Improvements Program, but they were not. Because of this, Mr. Agnor is not suggesting now that these Reserve funds be used for refurbishments. He then reminded the Board that during this current year $600,000 of the Carry-over balance was used to balance the operating budget. For 1986-87, however, he is not recommending that any of the Carry-over balance be used for that purpose. Mr. Agnor said he was sorry the School Board members could not stay for the remainder of the meeting because he is sure the new members of the School Board are aware that in January of 1981 the Board of Supervisors gave them a special appropriation of approximately $100,000 to install the pay and classification plan. In July of that same year, a merit plan was funded by the Board of Supervisors for classified employees. Neither was ever done, but the money was used for equity adjustments. There have been two other equity adjustments since then, plus the one that is being considered for this budget. Mr. Agnor believes that the School Board needs to realize that this creates a problem because of the general government employees who do not get any merit raise or equity adjustment. They only get the general increase. Mr. Lindstrom asked what kind of communication takes place regarding the general adjust- ment for general government employees and the general adjustment for the school system classified and administrative salaries. Mr. Agnor replied that Mrs. Hastings did a survey regarding the competitiveness between these groups of employees and the need to adjust salaries. She then met with Mr. Overstreet and Mr. Agnor and reported that the salary schedules are competitive in many positions, and that applications for all positions were March 19, 1986 (Afternoon - Adjourned Meeting) P~P~_ge 11.) 429 well in excess of the County's needs. The three of them decided at this time to consider salary increases on the inflationary factor and not change salaries because of lack of appli- cations or because they were lower than competitive salaries. Mr. Agnor said that the survey and his meeting with Mr. Overstreet and Mrs. Hastings took place last fall. Mr. Lindstrom asked how these staff deliberations get to the School Board members. (There were still two School Board members present.) Mr. Charles Tolbert responded that the School Board gets the budget from the staff and there is a r~'~mendation for a salary increase level for both administrators and classified persg~g~l. This is discussed by the School Board with the knowledge that the Board of Sup~~rs woutd"~'~-efer that these salaries be the same for school and general government employees. Because of this, Mr. Tolbert said that there is always speculation as to what the increase will be for general government employees. The School Board discusses the cost of living increase for that year, etc. He said, however, that this is the first time that he has heard the information relating to classified and administrative positions that Mr. Agnor gave to the Supervisors at this meeting. Mr. Bowie asked Mr. Tolbert how long he has been on the School Board, and Mr. Tolbert replied that this is his fifth year. Mr. Tolbert clarified his statement, though, by saying that he had not heard about the numbers of applicants for each position, but he does recall being informed about all of the classified salary information. Mr. Lindstrom inquired if the three and one-half percent salary increase request for classified personnel is based on Mrs. Hastings' recommendation. Mr. Agnor stated that Mrs. Hastings did not recommend a three and one-half percent salary increase, but she recommended that only the inflationary factor be considered for salary adjustments. Mr. Lindstrom then asked how the decision for the three and one-half percent salary increase was reached. Mr. Agnor explained that this was done by looking at the consumer price index (CPI) for the State of Virginia which was 3.4 percent in November. Over a period of several months, this index had moved from 3.4 percent to 3.8 percent. He, Mrs. Hastings and Mr. Overstreet felt that 3.5 percent would be a good target number on which to build the budget. Mr. Lindstrom asked when this information about the three and one-half percent was available to the School Board. He also inquired if there was agreement as to this percentage. Mr. Agnor understood that there was an agreement that the budget would be built and submitted on three and one-half percent to see if it would be accepted. He thought this percentage would be the commonality for the salary adjustment for everyone except classroom teachers. He mentioned that class- room teachers were not discussed. Mr. Lindstrom said that if there is supposed to be commonality between the school classified and administrative personnel and the general government employees, then this needs to be discussed with the School Board. He is wondering what kind of communication took place after the meeting with Mr. Agnor, Mr. Overstreet and Mrs. Hastings. He then asked Mr. Overstreet if he recommended three and one-half percent to the School Board. Mr. Overstreet replied that he had recommended five percent to the School Board. Mr. Lindstrom inquired if the School Board had any comnunications with the personnel office or the County Executive's Office as to what percentage of salary increase the general government employees were going to receive. It appears to him that the School Board is not getting the information it needs to have in order to make an appropriate decision. It also seems that the information on the three and one-half percent salary increase would have been available at the time the School Board started budget preparations. Mr. Overstreet answered that the School Board's information was based on primary factors, such as the Consumer Price Index, and that three to four percent salary increases were discussed at that time. After that point, Mr. Overstreet said that Mr. Agnor was aware that he was going to propose the five percent increase for school employees, even though Mr. Agnor was going to propose a three and one-half percent increase for general government employees. Mr. Agnor said that he left the meeting with Mr. Overstreet and Mrs. Hastings with the understanding that he and Mr. Overstreet were going to propose the three and one-half percent increase for their employees for discussion with their respective Boards. Mr. Agnor did not learn about the five percent increase for school employees until after Mr. Overstreet had already had his discussion with the School Board. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the School Board knew, at the point that the Superintendent presented his budget, that the Board of Super- visors was receiving the County Executive's recommendation of a three and one-half percent pay increase for general government employees. Mr. Overstreet replied that the School Board budget was proposed before the general government's budget. He said that he, Mr. Agnor and Mrs. Hastings had a good meeting, and he and Mr. Agnor had access to the same data. But, he did not interpret the information in the same way that Mr. Agnor did. He did not leave the meeting with the firm commitment that both of them would use the same salary increase percen- tage. He pointed out that he also interprets some employee positions differently from others. He said, for example, that classifying a bus driver is a different concept from classifying a groundskeeper for the County. Mr. Tolbert said that he did not know that three and one-half percent for salary in- creases had been discussed as the potential increase for general government employees. He said, however, even if he had known this he may have argued for a five percent pay increase for school administrative and classified personnel. He is not convinced that it is enough to say that the County is competitive in the market and that the inflation rate is approximately three and one-half percent. It seems to him that when there is a period of reasonably good economic times, and there is the opportunity to give people more than a set increase, then advantage should be taken of this opportunity. He agrees that school employees and general government employees should be on the same schedule. He does feel, however, that after the Boards have been advised by its staffs, that it would be wise for the two Boards to sit down and discuss this issue so that the philosophical views can be brought to some general con- clusion. This would prevent arguments at meetings such as this one when both Boards have gone on record with salary increases that have been presented to the community. He said this problem should be dealt with before it gets this far. 4:30 March 19, 1986 (Afternoon - Adjourned Meeting) Mr. Fisher commented that he believes that the County Executive and the Superintendent should come to an agreement from the outset, and should make the same proposal to the two Boards. Then, if there are problems, the two Boards could discuss them. Mr. Tolbert agrees that there should be a common staff recommendation. He pointed out, though, that he is not always willing to accept the staff recommendation. He may want to make changes and adjustments during discussions. It seems to him that if the two Boards want to have the same salary increase, then they need to discuss the situation after they get the staff recommendations. Mr. Lindstrom agreed with Mr. Tolbert that the two Boards should try to debate this issue earlier in the budget process. He hopes that next year this can be handled better. Mr. Henley said that he thinks that the administrators and Personnel Director should try to come to an agreement on salary increases, and if they can't, then the Boards need to resolve the issue. He agrees with Mr. Tolbert's recommendation, but thinks that it should have been done sooner. Mr. Bowie added that if the County Executive recommended three and one-half percent and the School Superintendent did not agree, then both Boards should have been aware last November that there was a problem. Mr. Fisher asked that the Board members concentrate on the budget recommendations for the Public Hearing. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the information dated March 18 is an up-to-date summary of all the budget changes, and Mr. Agnor answered, "yes." Mr. Lindstrom asked if someone could explain some of the changes for him. Mr. Fisher suggested that all school matters be taken care of first, before other matters are considered. Mr. Lindstrom said it would be helpful to him to know what is being done with the remainder of the budget. He then asked Mr. Agnor about the $11,600 increase ii the Police Department. Mr. Agnor answered that this was an error in the preparation of the budget and an item was left out inadvertently. Mr. Lindstrom next asked about the decrease in the Inspections Department budget of $15,000. Mr. Agnor replied that this $15,000 decrease is because of removal of two vehicles He explained that police vehicles are being used until they have 100,000 miles on them, but other County vehicles were only being used until they had gone 70,000 miles. Next, Mr. Lindstrom wanted to know about the Engineering Department and the reduction of $7,366. Mr. Tucker answered that this was a reduction of salary compensation when a new director was hired, and also because a consultant's service was overfunded. The next inquiry that Mr. Lindstrom made concerned the approximately $1,700 change in the Housing Department budget request. Mr. Tucker explained that the compensation category was greater there than it should have been because the director of that office left during the year, and the salary was calculated incorrectly. According to Mr. Agnor, the change in Emergency Services is because it is now becoming a part of the 911 Center budget. This removes it entirely from a separate appropriation. He added that the Emergency Services Director is now the 911 Center Manager. Mr. Agnor then pointed out that it was recommended, on the March 18 memo, that $4,300 be added in as "Recovered Costs" for Emergency Services which the state funded for that position. He asked that this be removed, and said he was in error when he asked that this amount of money be put into the General Fund. He said it should actually go into the 911 Center fund. Mr. Lindstrom said that a request has been made consistently from some citizens for a Housing Coordinator, and he asked what has been done concerning this matter. Mr. Tucker answered that Board members should have received a memorandum from the Director of Planning concerning that position. Mr. Horne feels that efforts should be concentrated in the Moderate Rehabilitation Program at this time, and the funding for this federal program should be utilized.to direct all energies toward finding 240 units that will qualify for rehabil- itation. He does not want to add any additional funding for a Housing Coordinator at this time. Mr. Tucker and Mr. Agnor agree that this is probably a better approach. Mr. Tucker said this program will make a big difference in housing needs if these 240 units can be used for subsidy units in the future. Mr. Agnor said that Mr. Horne also recommended in the memo that he feels that housing coordination of a variety of programs is more appropriately a regional function than it is a local government function. At this time, Mr. Fisher stated that there will probably be a lot of different view- points on the School Budget, and there needs to be a general consensus by the Board. He said that the School Board would like for the Board of Supervisors to appropriate all of the additional money out of reserves and fully fund everything that has been requested. He said that this approach interferes strongly with some of his concerns. He thinks that the system as a whole has more instructional personnel than it can justify. He is not saying that specific positions are not needed in certain areas or that changes ought not to be made as the School Board detects priority changes. The system has decreased in student enrollment by approximately 1,000 pupils over a ten year period, and he does not believe that the staffing has decreased very much over that period of time. Now that enrollment has started increas- ing, he feels there should be some capacity for absorbing a considerable number of pupils. He is still concerned that the County is trying to meet salary mandates from the General Assembly at a time when the County has one of the highest staffing levels of any school system in the state. He said this forces the County taxpayers to pay all of the costs for a considerable number of instructional personnel out of local funds. If individual classes are considered, it is clear that there may be a need for additional personnel. He honestly March 19, 1986 (Afternoon - Adjourned Meeting) (Page 13) 431 thinks, though, that adding personnel at this time is a cost the County cannot afford. He would like to see a budget put together for the school system which has a three and one-half percent base increase for all non-teaching personnel, a ten percent average increase for all teaching personnel, and no additional positions. It seems to him this would be a way of dealing with this substantial problem. He added that the ten percent increase in salary for teachers could be a combination of an increase in salary and transfer of benefits to meet the ten percent mandate. He said that the freeze on instructional positions may mean that some people may have to be reassigned. It seems to him that this combination of things would work in the direction of trying to meet the mandate without penalizing the school system substan- tially. He said that this will not solve all the problems because there is still a shortfall of money. He is inclined to follow the County Executive's total recommendation for funding, but he does not believe that the reserves that have been set aside should be used. He would like to see a part of the reserves returned to the people who are paying personal property taxes. He pointed out that $1,000,000 more was collected from these taxpayers than was budgeted, and he feels that some return of that should be considered by the Board. The City's and the County's tax rates are $4.39 and $4.50, respectively. He would prefer having the same tax rate for personal property as the City. He said this would cost approximately $150,000, there would still be a reserve pool, and a lot of Gramm-Ruddman issues could be solved. Mr. Bowie commented that he supports the concept of lowering taxes. He said that the fair way to distribute a small amount of money is through personal property taxes, but he would hope that ultimately something could be done about the continually escalating real estate taxes. He will support at least the three and one-half percent increase in salaries. He pointed out that Mr. Tucker had said initially that there were serious weaknesses in the general government's own merit system, and it was changed. Now, he believes that the School Board will have to put in a merit pay system at the same level as the general government's and fund whatever is possible. But, Mr. Bowie would not like for the Supervisors to fund more than they can for their own employees. He pointed out that out of 136 communities the County of Albemarle is sixth in the level of staffing. It seems to him that these positions can be absorbed, and the ten percent mandate for teacher's salaries can also be met. Mr. Way does not have an actual proposal, but he agrees with Mr. Fisher and Mr. Bowie, with one exception. He is not sure he can agree with not increasing the teaching positions because there will be an increase of more than 100 students this year. It is his opinion that one of the great values of the County school system is that the School Board has worked very hard at getting the teacher/pupil ratios to a level that the parents are pleased with and have supported. The fact that the teacher/pupil ratio is good is one of the reasons why the school system is so superior to the others in the state. Mr. Lindstrom announced that he has a problem with most of the initial proposal that Mr. Fisher made. He does agree with giving all non-teaching personnel a three and one-half percent increase in salary, and he would like to see the County adopt a slightly different procedure for budget processes that would be similar to what Mr. Tolbert and Mr. Henley suggested. He is concerned, however, about the failure for the school system to implement the merit system which would essentially give the school employees an opportunity for increase if they had done a meritorious job. He would support Mr. Agnor's recommendation that the refurbishing coSts be paid other than from the operating budget. He said that there is still a considerable shortfall, and if the ten percent mandate is not met, it will leave the budget short of approximately $175,000. Because of the ten percent mandate issue, he considers the General Assembly to be ignorant of any significant details at the local level or unwilling to be informed. He sees it as being a "wash" one way or the other unless benefits are considered. He thinks that it is more likely that those communities which have not gone along with the mandate will be penalized in the future rather than that the mandate will be dropped entirely, and he feels that the prudent course is to fund the mandated ten percent. He has trouble considering benefits because it does represent a decrease in com- pensation going to instructional personnel. He thinks that the whole thrust of the Board has been to upgrade instructional salaries. This is one reason that he is resentful of what has been done at the State level, but thinks this should be handled through the General Assembly representatives, rather than taking money out of instructional salaries. He would propose that rather than decreasing personal property taxes, that the $400,000 that the Board of Supervisors has set aside be added to the budget for the schools to cover the new and expan- ded programs, including the additional teachers. He very strongly supports the pupil/teacher ratio, and is pleased that some of the problems have been taken care of since last year. He also supports funding the: ten percent mandate for teachers' salaries. He said that a number of his constituents also agree. He is concerned with the way that revenues are raised because he thinks that real and personal property taxes are unfair, but they are the only to raise revenues locally. However, he is not willing to penalize the essential government programs that he thinks the Board is responsible for because he disagrees with the system of taxation. Mrs. Cooke has no problem with the three and one-half percent pay raise for non-t~ personnel or the ten percent increase for teachers. She said that she has no problem with being at the top of the state list for the level of staffing and having the very best for the children in the school system. She said that she agrees with Mr. Lindstrom's proposal, and asked if the Board has to make a final decision at this meeting on the School Board budget. Mr. Fisher replied that the Board needs to come to a consensus so that the staff can be given direction on putting together a budget proposal for the Public Hearing. Mr. Lindstrom made a motion to accept Mr. Agnor's recommendation in respect to the refurbishing, and also that $400,000 of the unallocated anticipated revenues be added to the School Board budget for the purpose of meeting the state mandate and funding the new and expanded program request, aiming for a three and one-half percent administrative and clas- sified employee general increase. Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion. Mr. Henley did not support the motion. Mr. Bowie said he could not support the motion, but he could support the concept of everything that Mr. Lindstrom said. However, to wipe out the reserves without trying to balance the budget or work through a budget process, and not to consider a return of money to the taxpayers, he feels is wrong. 432 March 19, 1986 (Afternoon - Adjourned Meeting) (Page 14) Mrs. Cooke said that based on her communication with taxpayers, parents are saying that they want the best school system that they can have, and they don't mind paying for it. She said her views are reflecting this because parents are asking that taxes be raised if this is what it takes for a good school system. Mr. Lindstrom added that he supports the budget not only because his constituents support it, but he thinks that this is a reasonable budget. He believes that it does not significantly expand or add to the school system, and that a good system is being maintained.! He also believes that a response is being made to things that could not be seen a year ago. Mr. Way asked how Mr. Lindstrom arrived at the $400,000 figure. Mr. Lindstrom replied that it is his understanding that, not counting the increase necessary to meet the state man- date, there is $525,000 more that the School Board has requested than the County Executive is recommending that could be used for the School budget. The County Executive has also recom- mended that the refurbishments be funded out of the Carry-over balance and not out of the operating budget. That brings the difference between the School BOard's recommendation and the County Executive's recommendation to $275,000. If this is reduced by the difference between the five percent that the School Board has recommended for classified and admin- istrative salary increases and the three and one-half percent, that is another $100,000 which decreases the total to $175,000. His recollection is that the amount of money needed to meet the state mandate is approximately $230,000. If this is added back in, it amounts to approx- imately $408,000. Mr. Henley commented that he has been on the Board for 14 years, and he has had very few people to ask that their taxes be raised. Roll was called and the motion failed by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Lindstrom and Mr. Way. Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, and Henley. Mr. Fisher said he believes there is a general agreement among the Board members that they would like for the school system to submit a budget which will reflect the three and one-half percent increase for non-teaching personnel. Board members agreed. Mr. Bowie said he believes that the three and one-half percent increase in salaries for non-teaching personnel has been decided. He thinks that Board members also agree that teachers should get the ten percent pay raise. He thinks the School Board should be res- ponsible for figuring out how to handle this within its existing budget. He concurs with having the refurbishment paid from Carry-over funds. He also believes that positions can be handled without hurting the County's standing in the state in relation to the level of staffing. Mr. Henley said he would support Mr. Bowie's comments as a motion. Mr. Bowie then made a motion that the School Board budget be resubmitted to indicate the three and one-half percent increase in salary for administrative and non-instructional personnel. Secondly, that the ten percent mandated pay raise for teachers be included, but without an increase in the total budget. Thirdly, he moved that the Supervisors take the County Executive's recommendation to have refurbishment money taken from the General Fund Carry-over balance, and not from the reserves. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Bowie if he meant that the total School Board Budget should be the amount recommended by Mr. Agnor. Mr. Bowie answered, "yes." Mr. Lindstrom pointed out that the school system has a shortfall of $400,000. Mr. Henley seconded the motion. this recommendation for its budget. He would like to see what the School Board can do with Mr. Lindstrom said that he cannot support this motion. In order for the school system to make this recommendation work, the salaries of the teachers will have to be decreased, and he thinks the level that has been proposed is reasonable. Another concern is that the School Board, to make up the difference, will have to convert some benefits. He thinks this is short-sighted because it will not be possible to continue to convert benefits. One day the difference will have to be dealt with. Mr. Henley stated that the School Board should be given the chance to try to work out something with its budget. If it can't be done, then the Board of Supervisors will look at it again. Mr. Lindstrom said Mr. Henley does not seem to be giving any consideration to setting the tax rate, and that Mr. Henley is, instead, concerned about the School Board's response to a request to adjust its budget. Mr. Agnor answered that if the budget is adopted on April 9 it will have to be advertised by next Tuesday. Mr. Henley asked if the budget had to be adopted on April 9. Mr. Agnor responded, "no." He said that this date was selected so that school teacher contracts would have an approved figure for salaries by April 15. Mr. Henley wondered if the School Board would have enough time to make its budget changes and present them to the Supervisors at a meeting on Friday. Mr. Taylor answered that it took two months to prepare the budget, and it could not be. reworked in two days. Mr. Fisher suggested that the Board try to stay on the schedule that has been estab- lished so that the School Board and the teachers will have the best knowledge of what the budget will be. As far as setting the tax rates, even though he wants to reduce the personal property tax rate, he has no objection to advertising for the Public Hearing without a reduction in that rate. That way, there would still be the flexibility of raising the tax rate later. Mr. Lindstrom said that if the motion is to ask the School Board how it would fund the mandated ten percent, and ask for a report back to the Supervisors, he would support it. Mr. Fisher commented that there has to be a budget to present at the Public Hearing. Mr. Lindstrom said he does not mind scheduling the Public Hearing for a later date, if there March 19, 1986 (Afternoon - Adjourned Meeting) 433 is a constructive purpose behind it. He thinks that the date that has been suggested for the Public Hearing does not allow the School Board time to work out its budget adjustments. Mr. Fisher replied that he does not think it is short notice for the School Board. He thinks that everybody has known what the resources were going to be since last November. He also thinks that the requests continue to escalate and are not being controlled. The School Board will have to suffer the consequences. Mr. Lindstrom disagreed with Mr. Fisher by saying that it is the School Board's o~%~ga- tion to request what it thinks is necessary to provide quality education in this Coun~~'~ He then asked what is the purpose of the motion. Mr. Bowie answered that the purpose of the motion is to accomplish three things. The funding of the pay raise for administrators and non,teaching personnel at three and one-half percent, the funding of the teachers' pay raise at ten percent within the existing budget, and that refurbishments be handled from Carry-over funds. He said he did not say a figure, because he was not sure what it is. He feels that these three things have to be done. Mr. Way added that the total figure for the School Board budget is exactly what the County Executive is recommending. Mr. Bowie mentioned that he was not concerned with how the School Board will use the difference between the three and one-half percent and the five percent for non-teaching pay raises. He said that it could be used in any way that the School Board wants to use it. Mr. Lindstrom pointed out that the School Board budget is still $300,000 short for its new and expanded programs and for funding the ten percent mandated teachers' salaries. Mr. Fisher commented that this is not very much considering the total amount of the School Board budget. Mr. Lindstrom said that if the motion included a request to the School Board to meet as quickly as possible and report back to the Supervisors as to how it is going to accomplish these changes before the budget hearing or tax rate is finalized, and it is conditioned upon a review of what the School Board is going to do, he will support it. He cannot support a mandate to the School Board. Mrs. Cooke agreed with Mr. Lindstrom. She said the motion is agreeable to her as long as the School Board is going to report back as tc how the changes will be handled. Mr. Henley said the motion was not considered as a mandate to the School Board. Mr. Bowie stated that his original motion had asked the School Board t¢ readjust its budget, but he has no problem with Mr. Lindstrom's suggestion. Mr. Lindstrom said he would like to see a request to the School Board to resubmit its budget based upon the premises set forth in Mr. Bowie's motion. Mr. Fisher asked if the Supervisors are willing tc defer the Public Hearing. Mr. Henley said he is willing to meet with the School Board next week if necessary. Mr. Bowie agreed with Mr. Henley. Mr. Lindstrom stated that he would like to request the School Board to tell the Supervisors how it proposes to meet the ten percent mandate for teachers' salaries, if the conditions that are established in Mr. Bowie's motion are going to be imposed. However, he does not want to impose those conditions until the Supervisors can see how the School Board is going to accomplish these conditions. Mr. Henley then asked if it will be possible for the Supervisors to allocate some of the reserve money, if the School Board cannot come up with enough funds to cover all of the conditions. Mr. Fisher answered, "yes," if a majority of the Board is in agreement. Mr. Bowie agreed that he has no objection to supporting an allocation of reserve money to the School Board if it is needed, but he wants to give the School Board a chance to work out the problems first. Mr. Lindstrom said that the only problem that he has with the motion is that it does not clearly state that it is just a request for the School Board to tell the Supervisors how it will implement this proposal. Mr. Henley asked Mr. Agnor if he had any problem with his question as to how the Super- visors could fund the remainder of the School Board budget, if the School Board could not come up with the total amount of money. Mr. Agnor answered, "no." He said he just wanted to be sure that everyone understood that his recommendation, in terms of the total amount of money, will actually increase by approximately $200,000 and the revenues will increase by the same amount by adding in the Carry-over balance figure. He will recommend that the refur- bishments be done from the Carry-over balance, and the Supervisors will add in the ten percent mandate. He said these will almost offset each other. Mr. Henley said that he agreed with Mr. Bowie's motion. If the School Board cannot handle the Supervisors' proposals, then it can be reported back to the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Bowie said he just wants to take another look to see if the School Board needs help funding its budget. He is saying that this is what the Supervisors want to happen. The School Board needs to try to do these things and let the Supervisors know how they can be accomplished. Then, the Supervisors will present the budget at a Public Hearing. Mr. Lindstrom said he understood Mr. Bowie's motion, but Mr. Henley was not sure. Mr. Henley asked Mr. Bowie if he means that there will be no other way to help the School Board if its budget has a shortfall. Mr. Fisher pointed out that the reserve fund is still intact, and Mr. Bowie added that the budget could be changed after the Public Hearing. Mrs. Cooke was uncertain as to what was meant by the motion, so Mr. Lindstrom explained that Mr. Bowie is not interested in negotiating with the School Board. He stated that Mr. Bowie has said that the School Board will have to incorporate the three proposals mentioned in his motion in its budget. Then, the School Board will report back to the Supervisors what it is going to do. After the Public Hearing, on the night when the budget is officially adopted and the tax levy is set, the Supervisors will be able, if a majority of the Supervi- sors agree, to come up with a figure to add to the School Board's budget from the reserve fund. But, Mr. Lindstrom added that there is no guarantee that the Supervisors will add this money to the School Board budget and no request for further information from the School Board. However, if some Supervisors disagree with this proposal, they can ask for additional money for the School Board budget, when it comes time to adopt the budget. Mr. Bowie agreed that this was the gist of his motion, with no commitment to spend part of the reserves. Mr. Lindstrom clarified the motion further by saying that there is no implication that the Supervisors intend to add any funds to the school budget. Mr. Bowie said he wants the School Board to rework the budget, but he does not guarantee that anything will be added or taken away. Mr. Henley said that if the motion is approved, it will at least give the School Board a chance to try to work out its problems. That is why he is supporting the motion. Roll was called and the motion failed by the following recorded vote: March 19, 1986 (Afternoon - Adjourned Meeting) AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Bowie, Fisher and Henley. Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Lindstrom and Mr. Way. Mr. Lindstrom then suggested, if there is not an additional appropriation of $230,000 to cover the ten percent mandate, that the Supervisors request from the School Board a report that will inform the Supervisors how it proposes to implement that ten percent increase, and hopefully have that information back to the Supervisors by next week. Mr. Fisher said that if the April 9 adoption is not met, it will not be possible to set another Public Hearing before the latter part of April or early May, with adoption of the budget a week from that time. He asked if this would be a significant problem for the school system because of teacher contracts, since teachers have to be notified by April 15 if they will not be employed the following year. He next suggested that the second Wednesday in May be set for adoption of the budget. Mr. Overstreet commented that teachers have to be told if they are not going to be reappointed by April 15, but they do not have to be told exactly what the salary will be if they are to be rehired. He said that if a significant number of positions have to be cut to maintain other instructional programs, then this would have to be known before April 15. Mr. Fisher asked again if it would be a serious problem for the school system if the budget was not approved before mid-May. Mr. Overstreet answered that he did not think it would be a problem to the school system if approval of the budget was delayed. Mr. Lindstron wondered if it will take the School Board that long to respond to the Supervisors. Mr. Overstreet responded that he expects that the School Board will meet within the next couple of days to decide what it is going to do with the budget. Mr. Lindstrom said that all he is is asking for is some indication from the School Board as to what it will do under these circumstances. The Board of Supervisors could then schedule a meeting next week and set the Public Hearing at that time. Mr. Bowie then said that he thought he could reword his motion to be agreeable to other Board members. He asked if the School Board could have information back to the Supervisors by next Monday. Mr. Overstreet asked if the motion is a directive to the School Board. Mr. Lindstrom replied that he would like to ask if $230,000 is not added to the School Board budget for the specific purpose of meeting the state mandate for teachers' salaries, what will the School Board do to acquire this amount of money. Mr. Fisher commented that Mr. Lindstrom's suggested motion does not include all of the Supervisors' questions. Mr. Bowie went over the points in his motion again, which included changing the percent- age of salary increases for non-teaching personnel from five percent to three and one-half. He said this should be no problem because it is already a known fact that this will amount to approximately $100,000. Another point is the difference between the percentage that the School Board has already budgeted for its teachers' salary increases and the ten percent state mandated increase. Mr. Overstreet said that, in other words, he would be recommending to the School Board that it will need to report how it proposes to cut $400,000 from its budget. Mr. Bowie and Mr. Fisher reminded Mr. Overstreet that this is approximately one percent of the total School Board budget. Mr. Overstreet said that his Board Chairman will have to speak for the School Board, but he can get his staff together and make recommenda- tions to his Board as to how the staff proposes to make budget cuts. Mr. Taylor said he has no problem with calling the School Board to a special meeting tomorrow or to having an extension of next Tuesday's meeting, but he wonders if the procedure that is being followed is the legislative procedure that should be followed by these two Boards. He said the Supervisors will make a decision based on the School Board's reaction to their question as to what it will do if it does not get the desired funding. He is confused by the implications that this brings to him. If this is a directive from the Board of Supervisors, Mr. Taylor said that the School Board will certainly follow it, but he is very confused by the procedure. Mr. Fisher explained that the Supervisors are trying to find some common ground to give the School Board a budget. Mr. Lindstrom commented that there are two people who he thinks are willing to cut the budget in a way that puts the School Board in a position of having to come up with $400,000. There are three people who are not, and there is one person who does not know how much will have to be cut and what programs will be affected. This person seems to be saying that if too many things are badly affected, he may not go along with the proposal. Mr. Lindstrom said it will be tough for him to vote for a significantly different budget than the one he supported in his first motion. He said, however, the Supervisors have a public respon- sibility to work out a budget, and they are trying to work out a procedure that will allow the Supervisors to get helpful information. Mr. Henley said he thinks the School Board should take care of these budget problems at its Tuesday meeting. Mr. Fisher said that he does not think that this timetable will allow time for the School Board to put together a budget, adopt it, report back to the Board of Supervisors, have the staff incorporate it, get all of the typing completed, and advertise. Mr. Lindstrom asked if all of this has to be done. He said that all he thinks the Super- visors want is information from the School Board. Then, the Supervisors will act based on this information. Mr. Henley commented that the Supervisors are not threatening the School Board in any way. He said if there was more time, the Supervisors could probably resolve the issues today. This way, though, the School Board will have the opportunity to take another look at its budget. Mr. Taylor responded that he does not see the Supervisors' proposal as threat, but there does seem to be some confusion as it relates to the extra programs and how they will be funded if the ten percent mandate is met for teachers' salaries. He said, though, that if the Supervisors make this request of the School Board, he will get the members together as soon as possible and come back to the Supervisors with a report. Mr. Lindstrom said that the School Board may decide to take the chance that the General Assembly will not penalize the County during the next biennium, and it may fund the teachers salary increases at 8.2 percent. Now, however, since it is known what the state is going to do in regard to the ten percent mandate, the Supervisors would like to know how the School Board will address this issue. March 19, 1986 (Afternoon - Adjourned Meeting) 'Pa ~e 17, _ 435 Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Agnor if he has a proposal that could help settle this matter, and Mr. Agnor said he has heard two proposals at this meeting. One is to give the School Board $400,000 with conditions, and another proposal is to give the school system no additional money. Mr. Agnor suggested that maybe a compromise could be made with the Supervisors appropriating only part of the $400,000, which would mean that the School Board would still have to do some more calculating with its budget. Mr. Way said that it seems to him that all the Supervisors agree that the ten percent mandate should be met for teachers' salaries. He then made a motion that the County Execu- tive's original recommendation be increased by $235,000, which will basically insure the ten percent increase for teachers' salaries. Mrs. Cooke asked if Mr. Way's motion means that everything else will be left as it is. Mr. Way replied that the School Board will have to reduce its budget by approximately $200,000 as opposed to $400,000. Mr. Fisher asked if Mr. Way's motion includes also reducing the salary increase for non-teaching personnel to three and one-half percent, and Mr. Way answered, "yes." Mr. Fisher then asked if Mr. Way meant that his motion will appropriate the additional money to meet the ten percent state mandate for teachers' salaries, and that this money is to be earmarked for that purpose. Mr. Way agreed. Mr. Bowie wondered how this proposal would affect the reserve funds, and Mr. Agnor responded that they would be cut in half, leaving approximately $250,000. He pointed out to the Board, though, that there are other items to consider. Mr. Way asked how this would affect refurbishments, and Mr. Agnor said that he had recommended that refurbishment money be added as a Carry-over balance revenue item. Mrs. Cooke seconded Mr. Way's motion. Mr. Bowie asked if there has been a decision as to the total amount of money for fundin¢ the School Board budget. Mr. Lindstrom went over the figures again, and said the difference between what the School Board proposes and what the Supervisors propose is $525,000. He asked what was the exact refurbishments figure. Mr. Agnor asnwered that the refurbishments figure is approx- imately $225,000. Mr. Lindstrom said that the $225,000 refurbishment figure subtracted from $525,000 makes a difference of $300,000. The shift to the three and one half percent salary increase for non-teaching personnel saves another $100,000. Mr. Agnor added that if the school Textbook Funds are taken from the Carry-over balance, this will save another $25,000. Mr. Lindstrom said this means that the School Board's budget is still short $175,000 foz new and expanded programs, not counting the money needed for the state mandated teachers' salaries. The Supervisors, however, are willing to fund the $235,000 if it is specifically earmarked for instructional salaries. So, the ten percent mandate would be funded fully by the Supervisors, but the new and expanded programs would still be short. Mr. Bowie said that Mr. Lindstrom's calculations would give the School Board a figure to work with. He said he would support this motion as the only logical compromise. Mr. Fisher said that the motion on the floor would set the bottom line for the School Board budget and conditions for that budget so that the Public Hearing could be held as originally scheduled. Mr. Lindstrom commented that there is a proper way for a department to operate its budget, and that the people who allocate the money should not say that the department has to find a way to balance its budget and live with the problems in the future. He supports all of the expanded programs, and thinks that the School Board has conscientiously come up with budget, trusting that if there is money left over at the end of the year, it will be decided at that time what to do with it. He said he would rather deal with the situation in this manner. He cannot support the motion. Mr. Fisher said he will not support the motion because he thinks the system is over- staffed. He thinks to meet the state mandate in this way and to retain all of the benefits in such a way that the local taxpayers are paying an enormous share of the cost of the salaries, and getting no credit for the benefits that are being paid as far as the state is concerned, is the wrong way to deal with the problem. He will not support any increases ove~ what the County Executive has recommended. Roll was called and the motion failed by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Henley and Mr. Way. Messrs. Bowie, Fisher and Lindstrom. Mr. Lindstrom stated that part of his problem is that there has been a new approach thi: year to the budget. The process did not work quite the way he thought it would and ended up earmarking approximately $485,000 for the contingency fund. He does not recall having this situation before, because now each Board member has an idea of how this $485,000 should be spent. He believes this is money that should be seriously considered to maintain the level of education and programs in the County. He said it would be nice to be able to send the money back to the taxpayers, but he thinks the Board's first priority should be to maintain a quality school system. He is not concerned that the staffing levels are as high as they are. He believes that this provides a good educational system. It is difficult for him to negoti- ate something that he feels is as important as what the School Board budget is proposing. He mentioned Mr. Bowie's comments that he basically supported the principles of Mr. Lindstrom's motion, but he really wanted to send some money back to the taxpayers. Mr. Lindstrom person- ally does not believe that the Board is subsidizing the tax rate for people in special categories in this County. He does not feel that people are being overtaxed, and he believes that they are getting their money's worth. He said he would be more willing to take a chance on not funding the state mandate at all than to sacrifice new and improved programs that are important. 436 March 19, 1986 (Afternoon - Adjourned Meeting) (Pag~ L8~ Mr. Fisher commented that he had told Mr. Agnor that the reserve fund would never survive the budget process, because everyone would have ideas as to how they should be used. Mr. Lindstrom said that the reserve funds are being debated. He stated that it is the Board's responsibility to figure out how to use extra funds. Mr. Way believes that the new and expanded programs would have gotten funded with his motion. Mr. Bowie commented that it took him a long time to decide how to vote on the last motion, and he has been studying the budget figures. He wondered how a tie vote could be recalled. Mr. Fisher answered that any Board member could ask for a motion to reconsider a tie vote. Mr. Bowie then asked Mr. Way how he thinks his motion will provide for new and expanded programs. Mr. Way responded that his motion did not specifically provide money for these new and expanded programs, but it gave the School Board the opportunity to work out something for them. He thinks it would be very difficult for the School Board to do this, however, if it lacked $400,000. Mr. Agnor suggested that, since Friday has been reserved for the Board to spend addi- tional time on the budget if necessary, that Board members take a couple of days to consider all of these proposals. Mr. Lindstrom commented that he could not be at Friday's meeting because he has to go to Federal Court in Washington. Mr. Agnor then asked if the Supervisors would want to postpone this discussion until tomorrow, because there is already a meeting scheduled for that time. Mrs. Cooke asked if it would be possible to discuss the School Board budget again at the Supervisors' meeting tonight at the end of the session. Mr. Fisher agreed with Mrs. Cooke's suggestion. Agenda Item No. 3. Reconsider Volunteer Fire Department. Mr. Ray Jones reported to the Board that the Jefferson Country Firefighters requested an increase of ten percent which would have changed their budget figure from $33,000 to $36,300 for the seven volunteer fire companies. After reviewing this, the County Executive's recom- mendation is for $34,320 which is a four percent adjustment. This same adjustment was done for the rescue squads. At the work session, Mr. J. B. Morris came and supported the ten percent, request. He thinks Mr. Morris was saying that the County grants provide their operating expenses, and the fire departments find themselves in the position of having to come up with additional money to take care of debts, etc. Mr. Jones also said that there is a new State law that went into effect last July that will appropriate to the fire departments $16,570 over and above this current year's appropriation, which will be divided seven ways. Next year, for the entire year, the state estimate is $36,162. Mr. Jones said this money is derived from a tax by the state on fire insurance premiums, and is distributed back to the fire departments. Mr. Jones said the County Executive's staff continues to recommend only a four percent increase in the budget for the volunteer fire. departments, after taking into consideration the state appropriations and also recognizing that some of the fire depart- ments' costs may decrease. Mr. Fisher asked if there was a motion for increasing the amount of funding for the Volunteer Fire Departments, and there was none. Agenda Item No. 4. Fire Service Contract with the City of Charlottesville. Mr. Agnor suggested deferring this item, since he did not think it was pertinent at this time. Agenda Item No. 5. Urban Bus Service. Mr. Tucker reminded the Board that, at its first work session, the staff had recommended maintaining the two routes on Route 29 North of the Urban Bus Service at the County's cost of $10,258. On the day of that meeting, a revised figuer was received which indicated that the Charolottesville Transit System had not included their cost of vehicle insurance. The insurance increased from $18,000 to $108,000, so the County's share of that route goes from $10,258 to $15,935. Prior to acting on this bus service budget, Mr. Bowie asked if some ridership figures could be acquired for Route 29 North. At this time, Mr. Tucker informed the Board that during fiscal year 1984-85, the ridership was approximately 232,000 passengers and this year the projection is for 237,000 passengers for the 29 North route. On the Georgetown/Hydraulic Road/Four Seasons route, for 1984-85, there were 17,978 passengers and the projection for this year is 28,000 passengers. Mr. Tucker stated that it will be the Board's decision as to whether it wants to maintain these routes as they exist currently at the increased amount of $15,935. At this time, Mr. Lindstrom offered motion that the present routes be retained at a cost of $15,935. Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom, and Way. Mr. Bowie. Mr. Bowie pointed out that the ridership figure of 232,000 indicates that there are 460 people riding these routes regularly. He said that when this issue was first discussed, it was mentioned that Pantops Shopping Center had requested bus service at a cost of $3,000 which the County Executive did not recommend. Mr. Bowie had not heard at that time that bus service was needed at Pantops, but this plan is currently being studied. He believes that most of the people in that vicinity will want the bus service. He said that if this issue comes before the Board, the people in that area believe that they will have to pay for it. He, therefore, cannot support this motion to spend taxpayers' money to run a bus service to Fashion Square. Mr. Fisher commented that the routes that are already in existence are in densly popu- lated areas of the County and are where there are the most traffic problems. He said that when people ride the bus, there are less cars in these areas. He believes that this is part of an overall plan to try to improve the traffic in these congested areas. He also thinks that buses to Pantops might help a little at Free Bridge. March 19, 1986 (Afternoon - Adjourned Meeting) (Page 19) 437 Mrs. Cooke said that another consideration is that these buses are transporting people into the shopping centers. The people are spending money, and the County is benefiting from the taxes. Also, City people are being brought into the County, and these.people could not get there without transportation. She does not think that this is a total expenditure, because of the revenues that the County will get in return. Mr. Bowie pointed out that it would take $1,600,000 annually in sales to collect the one percent sales tax to pay for the bus service, while the merchants are really the ones Who are benefiting. Mrs. Cooke said she did not say the bus service was paying for itself. Mr. Lindstrom agreed with Mrs. Cooke because he feels the bus service is not just a benefit to the private shopper. Agenda Item No. 6. Other Budget Items to be Reconsidered. Adult Day Care. Mr. Way called the Board's attention to Page 498 of the budget book relating to the Adult Day Care Program. He said the Program Review Committee recommended funding at $16,000, and the County Executive's recomnendation is for it not to be funded at all. When this program was first presented, Mr. Way said he indicated that he was going to make a motion for an appropriation for this program. He feels that it is a program that is very much needed in this community. A recent survey indicates that there are approximately 400 clients that would be potential users, and this would provide care for at least 24 County residents. These are people who need to have someone with them at all times. This program would allow the caretakers for these people to be employed, and also increase the County's home care program that is currently in operation. He mentioned, also, that there would be a tremendous amount of money saved in the prevention of institutionalization of elderly adults. He does not look upon this.program as a program that will come before this Board year after year asking for large amounts of money. He believes that once the program is funded, it will be in a position to leverage considerable money which it is unable to do now. If the program is in operation, it can benefit from Medicaid funds and Title XX funding. He believes the Adult Day Care Program may have to be considered for funding each year by the Board, but at a reduced level. At this time, Mr. Way offered motion that $16,000, as recommended by the Program Review Committee, be included for this item. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion. Mrs. Cooke stated that she agreed with everything that Mr. Way said about the Adult Day Care Program. She mentioned that she thinks this is an excellent alternative to institutional care, and thinks it is a worthwhile service that the County can offer its citizens. Mr. Bowie said he will support the motion because there is no other such service avail- able, and it is available to people who can pay for it. Hopefully, it will not require continued funding. Mr. Agnor added that he knows the Board is not aware of this, but there is $3,000 in the Parks and Recreation budget that will provide these same adults with recreational activities while they are in the Day Care Center. He pointed out that the Board will need to consider funding this amount, also, if the amount for the Day Care Center itself is funded. Mr. Way said he does not believe that the Day Care Center and the Parks and Recreation Program are necessarily related. Mr. Agnor replied that while the adults are at the Center, they are in need of therapeutic recreation to keep them active. This is what the Parks and Recreation Department provides for them. Mr. Way commented that he was under the impression that the Parks and Recreation program was an alternative, if funding for the Day Care Center was not approved. Mr. Tucker mentioned that the current program is funding City people, and Mr. Way responded that he knew that, but if his motion is approved, there will be $16,000 to be used for County people. Mr. Tucker mentioned that the $16,000 would not cover any of the recreational activities. The therapeutic recreation is a separate program carried in the Parks and Recreation budget. Mr. Agnor added that he thought to make the Adult Day Care Program complete, the $3,000 for therapeutic recreation should be added to the $16,000. Mr. Way said he would like to include the $3,000 for therapeutic recreation in his motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom, and Way. None. Jefferson Area Board on Aging - Home Safety Repair Program. Mr. Way then requested that the Supervisors look at Page 511 relating to the JABA Home Safety Program. He said this program was funded last year, and there has been a tremendous need for a program such as this. He had already indicated earlier that he was going to suggest that an additional amount of money be included in the budget for this program. There is $5,000 already recom- mended, and he would like to add an additional $5,000 to be funded for next year. This program works well with AHIP, it is successful and provides a much needed service at a relatively small cost to a lot of elderly people. Mrs. Cooke inquired if this was the program where the Board members were shown slides as to what had been accomplished for these elderly people, and Mr. Way answered, "yes." Mr. Bowie said that he will not support this motion, because he feels that $5,000 is a fair amount of funding for the County to provide. He pointed out that now there is AHIP and TJHIP working solely on low income type housing. He thinks there must be a limit as to how much money should be put into any one program. Mrs. Cooke said she had a problem with this program. She remembers from the slides that were shown to the Board that these were not improvements to homes that were owned by the individuals. They were homes that landlords refused to repair. She wants the people to have safe homes, but she does not want to subsi- dize landlords who do not assume their responsibility to keep their property in proper repair. She cannot support the motion. Mr. Way commented that many of the things that this program does are safety features that a landlord would not do. It provides specialized safety equipment for taking baths, etc. He mentioned also that this program will provide 438 March 19, 1986 (Afternoon - Adjourned Meeting) (Page 20) services to rental units, and AHIP will not. Mr. Henley stated that he will not support the motion, because he did not feel that there was a strong enough argument for an increase in the funding of the Home Safety Program. Mrs. Cooke mentioned that if the Board could stipulate that these improvements be specialized safety features instead of actually repairing the houses, she might be more willing to support the motion. Mr. Lindstrom clarified Mrs. Cooke's statement by saying that there could be a stipulation stating that this additional funding could only be for safety related improvements. Mrs. Cooke added to Mr. Lindstrom's statement by saying that the stipulation might indicate that the additional funding could not be used for general repairs to structures or safety that is clearly the landlord's obligation. She asked if the motion could be worded this way. Mr. Agnor and Mr. Fisher agreed that it would be difficult to decide what was safety related because some safety hazards, such as a broken step are clearly the landlord's responsibility. Mrs. Cooke said she could not see putting public money into something that will benefit the landlord. Mr. Tucker brought out the fact that many times, if the landlord improves the property, he will also increase the rent. Mr. Lindstrom said it is a difficult subject, but he thinks the~need is greater than the concern that the landlord will reap the benefit. He will support the motion. Mr. Way offered motion to add $5,000 for this program, making a total of $10,000. Lindstrom seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion failed by the following recorded vote: Mr. AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Henley. United Way Scholarship Fund. Next, Mr. Way directed the Board's attention to Page 540 relating to the United Way Child Care Scholarship Fund. He stated that he supported this motion last year, and it was defeated. He said his reason for supporting it is that he thinks it does provide a much needed service in that it allows the parents of these children to seek employment and to be employed. One of the regulations concerning the scholarship aid is that both parents have to be employed. The request from the United Way Scholarship Fund is for $13,796. He does not know where this figure came from, because it is an odd amount of money. He said that when the representatives from the Scholarship Fund appeared before the Board, they seemed to feel that any kind of County participation would be appreciated. Mr. Way would like for the County to fund $10,000 for the Scholarship Fund. Mr. Way offered motion to fund this item at $10,000. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion. Mr. Bowie cannot support the motion. He said that this is a voluntary contribution for a United Way Program. He thinks that this indicates that the Board feels that the citizens did not volunteer enough money, so it will be taken out of their taxes and given to the program. He cannot support forcing people to contribute to voluntary programs against their will. Mr. Lindstrom stated that United Way contributes to a lot of things that the Board supports. He was not here when the Scholarship Program was presented this year, but he remembers the presentation from last year. He thinks that this is something that is an investment, and he believes that the benefit is greater than the cost, because it allows people to be employed. Roll was called and the motion failed by the following vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way. Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Henley. Social Services - Cars. Next Mr. Tucker informed the Board that three cars are being requested for Social Services, but only one of the vehicles had over 100,000 miles. He said there was a misprint on Page 258 of the budget relating to the Bronco's mileage. Instead of 16,000 miles, it should state that the Bronco has 116,000 miles. For that reason, rather than funding the three vehicles as requested, the County Executive's recommendation is for $7,500 for one vehicle instead of $22,500 for three vehicles. Mr. Bowie asked the age of the Bronco, and Mr. Tucker said it is approximately ten year~ old. Motion to change line item 00700501, "purchase of vehicle", from $22,500 to $7,500, was offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mrs. Cooke. Roll was called and the motion carried with the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom, and Way. None. Forest Fire Extinction Service. Mr. Agnor noted that he had received a letter from the Forestry Department stating that the cost of this item is being increased to $13,595. Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to increase this line item from $9,060 to $13,595. Mr. Henley seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried with the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom, and Way. None. Mr. Agnor then stated that there are some FICA changes that had to be calculated by the staff which reduces the Finance Department's FICA by $143 and Staff Services by $572, which makes a total reduction of $715. Mr. Way moved that the FICA for the Finance and Staff Services Departments be reduced $143 and $572, respectively, due to recent FICA changes. Mr. Bowie seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: March 19, 1986 (Afternoon - Adjourned Meeting) 439 AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Mr. Agnor mentioned again that the $4,300 added to revenues for Emergency Service was "Recovered Costs" that should be removed. Mr. Henley moved that the $4,300 added to revenues as "Recovered Costs" for Emergency Service be removed. Mr. Way seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Agenda Item No. 6a. Revenues. Mr. Jones said that he would discuss only the general categories of revenues. He said the estimated General Property Taxes increase will be approximately $2,000,000 which will project $25,369.67 and will be an 8.51 percent increase. The major contributors to those revenues are the Real Estate Property and Personal Property taxes. As far as percentages are concerned, Personal Property is increasing more than Real Estate Property and is going up by approximately 20 percent. Other local taxes are increasing over $500,000, with the County realizing $9,400,000, which will be a 6.12 percent increase. The major contributors for other local taxes are the local sales taxes, utility taxes and business licenses. Permits, fees and licenses are going down and estimates are being adjusted to what it actually has been in previous years and the year to date for this year. Due to the fact that there were site plan and subdivision fees calculated for this category for the first time, it was overestimated. Next, Mr. Jones discussed fines, and he said that now there are other remedies used in court cases. Instead of fining people, sometimes they are being sentenced to community services, etc. Because of this, projections of revenues are not being reached. He mentioned that there will now be closer scrutiny as to what is written on state warrants versus what is written on County warrants. If there is an option, a person will be issued a state warrant for jail sentences, and a County warrant will be issued for sentencing. Mr. Jones stated that for "Use of Money and Property", the staff is expecting $1,100,000, and the major contributor is the interest on bank accounts of approximately $1,000,000. Mr. Fisher asked if this figure was projected downward because of the reflection of lowering trends. Mr. Jones answered that the County is looking at slightly more money at a lesser figure, so it is really holding steady at this figure. Mr. Jones said the staff is projecting the "Charge for Services" at 450,412 hours which is a ten percent increase. The major contributors are the Fees from the Clerks and Parks and Recreation. Mr. Jones pointed out that "Miscellaneous Revenues" indicate that a lot of refunds go back to the State of Virginia and not back to the locality, so estimates will be decreasing and adjusted according to that difference. "Recovered Costs" are projected at $95,000 which includes the reimbursement for the Watershed Management Office and also a Health Department refund. Mr. Jones stated that "Payment in Lieu of Taxes" from the State of Virginia is payment for the University of Virginia, which is being estimated at 4.22 percent increase or $46,900. "Non-categorical State Aid" which includes "ABC profits", "wine taxes", "vehicle motor carrier taxes", and "lease vehicle taxes" is estimated at $298,400. The only considerable estimate increase is the wine tax. Mr. Agnor pointed out that the grand total actually reduces for this category. Mr. Fisher commented that the staff's estimates for this year were very conservative. He is trying to assess how conservative the estimates are for next year. Mr. Jones answered that a lot of the estimates are related to the economy. Mr. Agnor added that the staff does not estimate from last year's figures. The estimates are done from this year's realized revenues. Mr. Lindstrom inquired as to what the Carry over balance will be this year. Mr. Agnor answered that it will be close to $1,300,000, of which $100,000 comes from expenditures and $1,200,000 comes from revenues. Mr. Bowie asked what is usually done with this money, and Mr. Agnor replied that some of it is always put into the Capital Improvements Program, and some is used for cash flow purposes. Not Docketed: Mr. Lindstrom reported that the Metropolitan Planning Organization met with a representative from the Highway Department this morning. The Highway Department representative assumed that what had been recommended by the City, County and the MPO was that Route 29 would have eight lanes. The representative's final comments were that the Department had decided to implement this plan because it was cheaper to go ahead and get it done, and the Department thought it would be an improvement. The representative promised the MPO schematic drawings of the cross section and the interchange proposed. The representative further stated that the Commission that has been set up by the Governor has scheduled a Public Hearing for March 31 in the Continuing Education Building at the University of Vir- ginia at noon. The representative feels that this is the appropriate time for addressing the proposed improvements. Mr. Fisher stated that he had received a letter from Senator Tom Michie stating that Senator Byrd has been named to the Transportation Study Commission. Mr. Fisher has the impression that it is hoped that the localities should channel their comments to the Trans- portation Commission through their local senators. He said he had also received a question- naire concerning transportation needs for the senatorial districts. Mr. Agnor wondered if Senator Michie should be invited to next Wednesday's meeting with Mr. Cowart. Mr. Fisher answered, "yes." March 19, 1986 (Afternoon - Adjourned Meeting) (Page 22)-- Mr. Bowie said that it appears to him that the diamond interchange at Rio Road will eliminate a lot of businesses, as well as widening Route 29 to eight lanes. He said the eight lanes were not in the original plan. Mr. Bowie added that he cannot support this plan if it is done within the next couple of years because it does not allow the businesses a reasonable time to make future plans~ Mr. Lindstrom stated that he would not be surprised if there is not a bigger problem with more businesses negatively affected ten years from now. He said the Highway Department is going to implement this plan sooner or later, and he feels the sooner it is done, the fewer businesses it will affect. He said that the Highway Department is required by law to pay fair market value for the property that it acquires. Mrs. Cooke commented that even if the Highway Department implements this plan, she will not support it. Mr. Bowie pointed out that even if the Highway Department pays fair market value for the buildings, the people who rent and run businesses from these buildings will be affected. Mr. Lindstrom answered that every commercial lease provides for these businesses and damages can be paid to the tenants. His concern is that this Board has to recognize the political realities of what is really happening. He said the highway improvements planning has been going on for many years, and there is no plan that will not seriously affect a lot of people. He gave an example of a man who runs a shop on Route 29 and lives at Squirrel Ridge, which is where the proposed bypass would be located. He said that he feels sure that this man would rather be paid to have his business taken for the widening of Route 29 than to have a bypass built 200 yards from his back door with no compensation. Mr. Fisher suggested that discussion of the highway improvements be deferred until later tonight. Agenda Item No. 10. Because of the lateness of the hour, at 5:45 P.M., Mr. Agnor told Mr. Fisher that he would like for the Board to go into Executive Session for discussion of personnel matters during supper. Mr. Bowie offered motion to adjourn into executive session during supper to discuss personnel matters. The remaining portion of the agenda will be carried over until this evening's meeting. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried with the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs.Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom, and Way. None. The Board reconvened into open session at 7:26 P.M. and immediately adjourned the meeting which had begun at 1:00 P.M. ' "- ~HA~RMAN ! /