1985-03-20 adjMarch 20, 1985 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 1)
A meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
March 20, 1985, at 1:00 P.M., in Meeting Room 7, Second Floor, County Office Building,
Charlottesville, Virginia, this meeting being adjourned from March 18, 1985.
PRESENT: Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T.
Henley, Jr. (arrived at 1:02 P.M.), C. Timothy Lindstrom (arrived at 1:03 P.M.) and Peter T.
Way.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr.,
Deputy County Executive; Mr. Ray B. Jones, Deputy County Executive; and Ms. Sandra R.
Markwood, Administrative Assistant.
Agenda Item No. 1.
Mr. Fisher.
The meeting was called to order at 1:05 P.M. by the Chairman,
Agenda Item No. 2. Work Session: 1985-86 County Budget.
United Way Child Care Scholarship.
Recommended $-0-.
Mr. Lane Kneedler was present.
Requested $10,934;
Mr. Agnor said the United Way Child Care Scholarship Program provides direct fee-
subsidies for low-income families in the Thomas Jefferson Planning District. The purpose of
the direct subsidy is (1) to enable parents to work (these are persons who are not eligible
for social services, yet are unable to provide for entire child care costs) and, (2) to make
quality child care available to "at risk" children. As the parent(s) chooses the child care
facility and pays a portion of the total cost, the parent(s) continues to share the responsi-
bility for child care.
The scholarship program was implemented initially in 1974 after United Way had been
supporting one child care center. As a result of their study, United Way decided to provide
direct subsidies (scholarships) in order to serve those with the greatest need at a variety
of facilities. As the demand for scholarships increased, United Way contracted with Central
Virginia Child Development Association to administer the scholarship program. Presently, a
volunteer committee meets monthly and aids the staff with administration and fund raising.
Before a subsidy for child care can be provided, the following criteria must be met: 1)
The family must meet low-income eligibility criteria; 2) The parents (or parent) must be
working full time (students may be served if enrolled in a vocational program); 3) The child
must receive day care services in an approved day care facility.
The families who meet the above criteria are awarded a scholarship as funding allows.
This scholarship amount covers only a portion of the full cost of day care and the parents
must pay the balance of the total cost. The average cost of a day care center is
$39.50/week. The highest scholarship awarded by United Way is $24/week and the lowest
scholarship is $8.00 week. The scholarship amount granted is determined on a sliding scale
which takes into account the family's size and gross income. The average cost of a scholar-
ship is $406.
Funding for scholarships presently comes from two sources: the United Way and the City
of Charlottesville. United Way funds are available for children throughout the Thomas
Jefferson Planning District. City funds are restricted to City children and may be used in
approved child care centers and family day care homes, or in the Public Schools' After-School
and Summer Care Programs. In FY 84-85, City funds were also set aside for an Infant Sur-
charge Program which provides additional subsidies for infant care. This program was initi-
ated to offset the necessarily higher cost of infant care for low-income families.
Mr. Agnor said the Program Review Committee recommended funding the $10,934, but he
recommends that this item not be funded. The Program Review Committee recommended funding
for one year on a trial period contingent upon the use of county funds being applied entirely
for full day child care (no summer or after-school programs). Funding was also recommended
only if the United Way "historic" share is utilized first to support County residents. Mr.
Agnor said the committee had listed a number of other reasons for their recommendation
however, he cannot recommend any funding because he thinks it may be the beginning of an
expectation that the government will get involved with providing child care so people can be
employed. Some such services are provided through the Social Services Department. The
expense of this should be considered first through the County program instead of through the
United Way.
Mr. Lane Kneedler said he is surprised at the recommendation and did not come prepared
to speak today. He received the committee report and did not know that there was a recommen-
dation against funding this program. The two main goals of the United Way are to provide
quality child care for working people who are, salary wise, on the poverty line. These
people might go on welfare if they did not get assistance for child care expenses. This
program provides participant scholarships; no one receives a one hundred percent scholarship.
This program helped 168 children last year, and not all of these cases were in the program
for the entire year. At present, there is a waiting list of 59, nine from Albemarle County.
United Way cannot help them because the County does not participate in the costs of the
program. In regard to the suggestion that the County adopt this as part of its Social
Services Program, the main concern of the program is to provide child care and if the County
wants to do it that way, that would be fine.
There were no suggestions made for a change from the County Executive's recommendation.
176A
March 20, 1985 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 2 ~
Community Attention Home. Mr. Paul McWhinney, Executive Director, was present.
Requested $22,720; Recommended $22,720.
Mr. Agnor said in total, 14 County youth were served in FY 83-84 which constituted 17
percent of the population served and a 39 percent increase over the FY 82-83 figures. Of
these 14 youths, eight county residents were served in Boys/Girls Homes for a total of 788
days. The County's FY 84-85 appropriation supported 411 of these days or three youth, while
the remainder were supported by Department of Social Services Title XX monies.
As explained in the local share formula section, Community Attention is seeking a 56
percent increase in funding for FY 84-85 in order to provide additional services. The agency
believes they will alleviate some of the strain on other services in the community, i.e.
police, courts, schools, etc., who are unable to avail themselves of Community Attention's
services. This year, six County youth have been turned down for service by Community Atten-
tion because of a lack of funds. Currently, one County youth is on a waiting list for
services. However, it should be noted that these numbers are low because County funds were
obligated within the first six months of FY84-85, thus causing a drop-off in referrals.
Also, youth who need residential care cannot usually be placed on a waiting list as they
cannot wait for services. This means they are placed in residential centers outside the
community and usually at a higher cost.
Emergency Medical Services Council. (TJEMS)
$9,900; Recommended $6,800
Mrs. Brenda Barbour was present.
Requested
Mr. Agnor said during the past year, the Thomas Jefferson Emergency Medical Service has
made a substantial effort to increase services to County residents. New programs include:
1) Emergency Medical Dispatcher Course - Training police, fire and rescue squad dispatchers
to handle medical emergency calls. 2) Mock Casualty Disaster - Disaster simulation staged at
the Airport designed to aid the City/County development and improvement of the regional
Disaster Plan. 3) Emergency Medical Information - Assessment of severely physically and
mentally handicapped students in Albemarle County Public Schools. 4) Dial-for-Life - (In
conjunction with JABA) - Emergency medical information program for the elderly. 5) Education
Programs for the Visually Handicapped - Teaching basic techniques in first aid, and access to
the EMS system to the visually handicapped.
Aside from the 15 components TJEMS listed in its Program, the Council states that it is
unable to prioritize or further refine its scope of involvement with emergency services. The
Council feels all 15 areas are interrelated and the responsibility of the agency.
TJEMS reports that they were a principle contributor to the establishment of the 911
Telephone System which became operational this year.
TJEMS states that it is impossible to project the number of persons to be served by its
programs during the coming term (FY 85-86), as the needs of the area and local agencies are
too variable to predict with any equity.
Mr. Agnor said the Council is requesting a 46 percent increase in the County's funding.
The Council states the increase is for increased salary costs and purchase of equipment,
rather than service expansion or new programs. However, all EMS councils receive regional
appropriations to be used for the reimbursement of salaries.
The Staff Review Committee recommended funding for TJEMS contingent upon a request to
the Board to commission a comprehensive study of the effectiveness, future needs and overall
coordination of all emergency services in Planning District 10.
They received low priority rating from the Program Review Committee because of an
inadequate local share formula, and a low score on compliance with the Comprehensive Plan
measurability of the need for services. Mr. Agnor said no increase in funding is recommended
since no new or expanded programs are planned. The Review Committee recommended that funding
be continued since services to Albemarle County citizens was increased during the 1984-85
fiscal year. The Committee did recommend that EMS charge nominal fee for participants in
their seminars and meetings to defray all costs associated therewith. Also, they should seek
other sources of funding, other than State and local.
Mr. Bowie said the Board had debated this item at length during last year's budget work
sessions, and Committee comments were much the same. There was a lack of information, and no
justification furnished, and no local share formula. He thought the funding was conditional
last year on that information being furnished this year. Mr. Agnor said the increase in
funding last year was not funded, only continued the level of funding from prior years. The
funding is for the cost of the space they occupy. Mr. Bowie said he finds it difficult to
vote for funding someone who can't justify what they do. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the $6,800
is for rent. Mr.Agnor said yes.
Ms. Barbour handed to the Board members some brochures just published by the State
Division of Medical Services. She said people used to think that EMS was used only by rescue
squads, and that is not so. They are being used by the hospitals, students and parents at
the schools. She said there was a question about the funding formula, and all EMS Councils
in the State are using the per capita formula. The Review Committee suggested that services
be used, but no actual count had been taken at programs and seminars to find out where people
live. It is estimated that 50 percent of the people live in Albemarle County, and that would
make the County's share of the EMS budget much larger than the amount requested.
In the past the EMS Council has applied to private foundations for funding, but those
foundations only fund special projects, not operational expenses. This year they applied for
a grant from Apple Computer Company, but the request is still pending. There was a comment
about duplication of services with the Red Cross or Heart Association. There are people from
176B
March 20, 1985 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting)
(Paae 3)
both of those organizations on the EMS Board now so all are working together to be sure there
is no duplication of services.
Ms. Barbour said in the past there appeared to be a problem with the working relation-
ship with the Charlottesville-Albemarle Rescue Squad, but that has been worked out. She
thanked the Board for its time, and asked that the Board consider at least the $6,800 of
funding.
Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission.
Mrs. Wayne Harbaugh was present.
Requested $20,125; Recommended $20,425.
Mr. Agnor said that PDC's budget is calculated on 35 cents per capita on a population of
57,500. Mrs. Harbaugh noted in a letter to the staff that PDC is considering whether to
request supplementary contributions or to use some other alternative to the per capita
approach for contributions from the smaller localities in order to continue to fund technical
assistance for local planning and zoning, in the absence of adequate state or federal fund-
ing.
Mr. Fisher asked the increase in Federal funding. Mrs. Harbaugh said currently the only
major grant in addition to major transportation planning is the Community Development Block
Grant Program. This year they did not receive such a grant, but feel they can qualify for
the grant once every other year. That is the reason an increase in federal funding is shown.
There is also a large "local funds" item that shows a decrease of 100 percent, but that is
actually a reserve which built up over a number of years during which there was receipt of
Federal funds. It was decided to continue with per capita funding but local planning assis-
tance will probably be decreasing over the years. Localities have been encouraged to provide
that service for themselves. A large part of the expenditure for this category this year was
spent for writing comprehensive plans for four of the smaller localities.
Mr. Fisher asked the size of the PDC staff. Mrs. Harbaugh said there are three profes-
sional planners, including herself, and one and three quarters support persons. Interns are
used from the planning division at the University. She then expressed her appreciation to
the Board, and said that Albemarle County is very important to the PDC, not only being its
largest contributor, but Albemarle physically also touches the boarders of all localities in
the PDC.
Mr. Lindstrom said he does not object to the recommendation, but has some difficulty in
trying to figure out what the benefit of the PDC is to Albemarle County. He feels the PDC is
of general benefit to the region in providing professional planning to the smaller locali-
ties. But, as the comprehensive planning aspect is dwindling, he finds it harder to put his
finger on any concrete thing that is being generated.
Mrs. Harbaugh said the main contribution of the PDC has been in regional efforts.
Housing is one regional program where the PDC worked closely with Albemarle. The regional
transportation planning culminated in JAUNT. By local officials getting together, and by
having the staff to provide for certain things such as the Drunk Driving Task Force, the PDC
has been beneficial.
Mr. Fisher said the principal reason for the formation of the PDC was under the old A-95
review process. It was required for Federal funding. The biggest success is the $40 million
sewer plant which would have been difficult to get without this organization. The Meadows
housing project might not have happened without the PDC, however, it is at the point where
the question is "what have you done for us recently?"
Mrs. Harbaugh said that transportation will continue to be a major regional effort.
Economic development is an activity where the PDC has worked with the City, and now there are
a lot of private inquiries about Albemarle County. It is at the point where the County will
have to decide what kind of information role the PDC is to play, or whether they will set up
some other organization to take over the delivery of information. The PDC staff does a lot
of coordination with state agencies, and has been able to recommend some measures on the
removal of hazardous waste. Maybe this type of service can be set up on an ad hoc basis, but
PDC staff has been trying to create an efficient, small organization that can respond to the
needs of the six localities without creating the need for a lot of extra bureaucracy.
Mr. Bowie said the Planning District Board, and the Executive Committee of PDC have been
discussing this for the last six months. There is some doubt that PDC is needed any longer
for its original purpose. With Federal funds going down, obviously the organization has to
find other funds. He feels that is to contract for services to the counties. Mr. Bowie said
he thinks it will be another year before a final decision is made as to the future of the
PDC.
Madison House. Dr. Jane Parker was present. Requested $4,200, Recommended $2,100.
Mr. Agnor summarized the request. He said Madison House is currently funded at $3,000,
but is requesting $4,000. The Program Review Committee recommends funding only at $2,100.
Two programs operated by Madison House are specifically aimed at serving County residents -
AHIP and the Migrant Aid Program. In the Migrant Aid Program, about 47 volunteers travel to
two or three camps six days a week to provide recreational and tutoring services. These
volunteers work with an outreach worker from the Education Department who is paid to provide
tutoring and other services at the camps.
The remainder of the programs provided by Madison House serve both City and County
residents. Last year, it was noted that Madison House served a disporportionate number of
City residents, yet received no direct funding support from the City for its services (the
City waived collection of taxes on the Madison House structure). Several avenues were
March 20, 1985 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 4 )
explored to provide increased services to County residents, and that is reflected in the
number of clients served.
Mr. Agnor said that this year's request is for a ten percent increase which Madison
House would use to provide training and monitoring of volunteers. In addition, some of the
increase would be used to defray transportation costs.
Mr. Agnor said the Review Committee did not recommend funding at the current level
because the need for programs for County residents was not specifically addressed, the
funding formula does not appear appropriate because of the amount of services rendered County
residents; and the need to increase coordination of volunteer placement with the Voluntary
Action Center. The Committee did recommend funding $2,100 in recognition of the efforts of
Madison House to increase volunteer placement in the County and because it continues to aid
AHIP and the Migrant Aid Program.
Dr. Jane Parker was present, and said she would like to clarify the County Executive's
comments. She said there is a dire need in the County for the services of Madison House.
Providing emergency food at Christmas, assisting with housing rehabilitation in the way of
manpower; providing tutorial assistance to County children in need of academic assistance;
providing a central coordination agency in the county for the migrant population; serving
senior citizens in the county; providing services to the handicapped, and providing adult
role models with Big Brother/Big Sister. These are not duplicated services, and if dropped,
she does not think they will be picked up in the future.
Dr. Parker said the funding formula has remained consistent over the past two years in
spite of the upgrading of some services to the County. She said that 44 1/2 percent of all
services are to the County. Last year Madison House was able to secure $7,000 in Federal
monies which allowed Madison House to act as the central coordinating agency for the County
to coordinate the efforts of the Health Department, the Nursing School at the University, and
many other facilities within the County Education Department this year. No overhead monies
went to Madison House for this effort, all of the funds were used for the migrant population.
In light of this, Madison House does request that the funding level remain at that of last
year.
Dr. Parker said that last year there was a question as to the amount of in-kind contri-
bution from the City in the way of the waiver of property taxes. The use of the figure of
$2,961 was thought to be an equitable way to appropriate funds based on a $3,000 allocation
from the County. Subsequently the City increased its contribution, in addition to in-kind
services, by $2,000. She encouraged the Board to at least continue with last year's level of
funding of $3,000.
Mr. Fisher said he is pleased with the effort to recruit volunteers. He knows it is
hard to get volunteers to go twenty miles out into the country. Mrs. Cooke asked what the
percentage increase relates to in numbers. Dr. Parker said the number is calculated on the
migrant program and AHIP, so that is about 100 volunteers on AHIP, and only those number of
volunteers used for the County's Migrant Program. Mrs. Cooke said her question concerned the
number of County residents served. Dr. Parker said it is estimated to be 1268 residents.
There was no suggestion at this time for a change in the recommended funding amount.
Matters for Consideration from Previous Work Sessions.
Mr. Agnor said he had a memorandum dated March 20, 1985, which lists all of the recom-
mended changes to date. One item needs to be added and that is $200 for the citizen member
serving on the Planning District Commission.
The first budget needing adjustment is that of the Board of Supervisors. $1,775 needs
to be added to "Compensation-Board of Supervisors" to allow the inflationally increase
allowed by State Code.
Mr. Agnor said the Clerk has requested funds to attend the Virginia Municipal Clerks
Institute, a one-week session for certification as a municipal clerk, that would require an
additional $600 be added to travel expenses.
Mr. Agnor said a third item is $1100 which would allow for a modum and terminal to
Legislative Services in Richmond while the General Assembly is in session each year. Another
$650 would be needed for operational costs, i.e., lease of the telephone line, and 25 cents
per transaction which is charged by Legislative Services. Mr. Fisher asked why a standard
telephone line could not be used for this purpose. Mr. Agnor said the telephone company has
said that the County would need to lease a line in order to have this service. Mr. Fisher
said he does not think he could justify the benefits on the basis of dedicated equipment. He
had hoped the County might get some use of the other equipment it is purchasing with a modum
and have that as a dumb terminal.
Mr. Fisher said concerning the request from the Clerk, he had talked with her and this
would be the only travel expense she would have in the coming year, and he thinks it is
important to the County that she have an opportunity to meet with other clerks to find out
how they handle office management, and he recommends that the $600 be added.
Mr. Fisher asked if any Board member wanted to make a motion to amend any of the items
just mentioned. Mr. Lindstrom said he would prefer to wait until the end of this session.
Mr. Henley said he cannot support $1750 for the item for Legislative Services. Mr.
Fisher said he cannot vote for that expenditure until it is determine ~ there is some other
way to cover that service.
Mr. Fisher asked if there were any opposition to the first two items. Mr. Bowie said he
is in favor of the Clerk's training, but wondered if there were a need to increase that line
178
March 20, 1985 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 5)
item. Mr. Agnor said it might be covered by the amount already requested, however, if the
amount is authorized, and anything happens to use up the travel expense allotment, this
particular item would not be affected.
Data ProcessinG.
presented:
The following memo from Mr. Ray Jones, dated March 13, 1985, was
"The 1985/86 recommended budget for Data Processing included new requests in
three areas (personnel, over-time and software) amounting to $60,553.
Staff recommends transfers in line items from the Data Processing Budget to
the Contingency Funds line item in the Board of Supervisors' budget in the
amount of $60,553 pending the results of the Data Processing Study.
The above adjustment does not impose a hold on the promotion of two existing
apprentice positions. These two employees have already been promoted to a
regular position at the beginning step of the salary range.
The adjustment reduces the Data Processing Operating Budget to a (Status
Quo) budget of $406,212 which consists of $258,362 in personnel costs plus
$147,850 in operations costs."
The Board members agreed with this concept.
Police Department. In response to a question from Mr. Lindstrom, the following memo
from Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., dated March 18, 1985, entitled "April 1983 Projection for Funding
Law Enforcement" was presented:
"In April 1983, a memo was submitted to you outlining a number of laws
regarding the formation of a police department, and projecting expenditures
and the levels of State funding in the first year of a police department
operation, estimated for FY 83-84. The report did not project revenues, or
expenditures, beyond 83-84 principally because State revenues are subject to
State budgeting, which is difficult to predict, and it was assumed that
expenditures for expanded law enforcement operations would occur, with Board
approval, whether it was for a police department, or a continuation of law
enforcement functions being a Sheriff department responsibility.
The first year of fully funding a police department occurred in FY 84-85
instead of FY 83-84. The April 1983 report stated that loss in State
revenues could occur in a range of $100,000 to $200,000, depending upon the
State budget. The estimated loss in the report for FY 83-84 as $129,536
which was not incurred because the police department became operational one
year later in 84-85. The loss of State revenues in 84-85 was $133,237.
The report projected expenditures for 83-84 at $1,178,495 for a continuing
Sheriff's operation and $196,577 for the beginning of a police budget,
making a total of $1,375,072 for both operations. The 83-84 approved budget
totaled $1,186,116 for the Sheriff's Department, and $221,406 for a Police
Department, making a total of $1,407,522 for both operations, an increase
over the report of $32,450 or 2.4 percent.
There are no comparisons that can be made of 84-85 financial data with the
April 1983 report, but comparisons can be made with the 83-84 budget and the
recommended 85-86 budget, as follows:
The 84-85 budget approved $278,295 for the Sheriff's Department, an increase
over 83-84 of $56,889 or 25.7 percent. Two additional employees were
included in the increase totalling $37,700. Subtracting the additional
employee costs out of the total increase, the base increase for 84-85 was
$19,189 or 8.7 percent.
The Police Department budget approved for 84-85 totalled $1,429,492, an
increase over 84-85 of $243,376, or 20.52 percent. Four additional employ-
ees were authorized, which cost $141,320. Subtracting the additional
employee cost out of the total increases, the base increase for 84-85 was
$102,056 or 8.6 percent.
The total for both departments was $1,707,787 which was an increase over
83-84 of $300,265 or 21.33 percent. Removing the expansion costs, the base
increased $121,254 or 8.6 percent.
The recommended funding in 85-86 for the Sheriff's Department totals
$283,965 without expansion, an increase of $5,670 or 2.0 percent. This is a
slightly distorted percentage increase because a $22,300 average salary
increase approved by the State, which is a 12.3 percent increase, is being
offset by a $16,300 reduction in the purchase of vehicles from three in
84-85 to one in 85-86. The true department increase, removing the effects
of vehicle purchases, is 9.1 percent for 85-86.
Recommended funding for the Police Department is $1,747,967, an increase of
$318,475 or 18.2 percent. Five officers to be employed in July and five in
January will cost $321,275 which, if subtracted from the total increase,
makes the base for 85-86 decrease $2800 over 84-85, or decrease 0.2 percent.
Considering several capital item purchase decreases, not related to the
expansion of the department, the true department increase is $63,780 or 4.5
percent.
March 20, 1985 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting)
178A
The total of budget for both departments for 85-86 are $2,031,932, an
increase of $324,195 or 19 percent. Removing the expansion costs of
$321,275 leaves an increase of $2920, or 0.14 percent.
Lastly, State revenues in 85-86 for both operations are estimated to be
$855,005, an increase of $87,397 over 84-85, or 11.4 percent. Applying
these additional revenues to the recommended increases will leave $236,798
in local funds needed to finance the recommended expansion."
The Board members asked for a brief explanation of the memo. Mr. Agnor said that in the
1983 memo and this memo he tried to project the loss in State revenues which was estimated to
be between $100,000 and $200,000 during the first year of the police department operation.
That was projected to occur in FY 83-84, but did not occur during that year. Nothing was
projected beyond the first year of the operation because revenues are subject to General
Assembly approval, and it was assumed that if law enforcement was expanded either as a
function of the Sheriff's Department, or as a police Department, it was going to expand with
Board approval in one of these departments, so the formation of the police department had no
bearing directly on projections of expanded expenses.
Mr. Fisher said the Board anticipated that all of the costs of expansion would be local
costs no matter which department was expanded. Mr. Agnor said that was correct, the State
was not going to support the expansion. The report projected the State loss at $129,536 and
when that loss occurred a year later, it was actually $133,237. Mr. Agnor said he took
comparisons of 84-85 budget, and projected it back to 83-84 and also compared it ahead to
84-85. He then went on to explain the remainder of the memo.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the amount of state aid for the police department is related to
the number of men in the department. Mr. Agnor said it does. Mr. Lindstrom said it appears
from the memo that the actual figures/~%se to the projections made originally. Mr.
Lindstrom said it is important to be able to explain to citizens the amount of the increase,
but there needs to be added to that the ac=ual increase in the program, adding in the $45,800
lost to this date in state aid. The total represents what is more likely to be local costs,
or $702,700 increase over 83-84. Included in that increase are 16 new people, two in the
sheriff's Department, and ten more 'being added, so about $500,000 of that amount is for new
personnel. The balance of $202,000 is the increase in the base. At the time the decision
was made to create a police department, there was a need for expansion of personnel and
coverage in the County, and the largest share of this increase seems to be for that purpose.
Mr. Agnor said that is correct. Mr. Lindstrom said he would like to have a written memo
delineating exactly what this base increase is for.
Mr. Lindstrom asked how many extra patrols will be furnished by the ten new people. Mr.
Agnor said it is takes two .. and one-half people to fill one position on 365 day/24 hour
basis.
Mr. Fisher asked how many sworn officers are now in the police force. Chief Frank
Johnstone was present, and said it is 49. Mr. Bowie asked how many are on patrol. Chief
Johnstone said it is 38. Mr. Bowie asked about the line item listed for consultants in order
to obtain certification. He said it takes two years, and there are only ten localities in
the whole country which are going through it. It takes a tremendous amount of paperwork and
to spend $7,500 for this while at the same time spending money to build the police force,
does not seem correct at this time.
Mr. Agnor agreed, and suggested that that amount be removed for the foreseeable future.
Mr. Agnor added that the amount listed in this budget for overtime compensation has been
recalculated and will not be sufficient. He suggested that the $7,500 be added to "over-
time".
Mr. Bowie asked why all the lights and sirens on the police cars are being replaced in
this one year. He said the County has two years before the new legislation becomes effec-
tive. Why not do this as the cars are replaced? Chief Johnstone said that over one-half of
the equipment on cars at this time actually belongs to the police officers and not the
county. He would like to replace what belongs to officers; 14 units. Mrs. Cooke said she
has no problem with the request. Mr. Bowie said he did not know that the equipment actually
belonged to the officers, so he has no problem with replacing the 14. Mr. Agnor said that
nine automobiles are being replaced in this coming year, and ten new cars are being pur-
chased. Mr. Fisher said the 14 are all for cars that are not being replaced this year. He
suggested that $7,000 be deleted from that category. The other members agreed.
Planning Department. Concerning the Planning Department, Mr. Agnor said the staff had
estimated that an additional $14,500 will be needed to replace existing typewriters with work
processors instead of Memory typewriters. He suggested that this amount be taken from the
General Fund Carry-Over balance.
Region Ten Community Services. Mr. Agnor said the Board was to consider the recommended
amount. Mr. Fisher said the requested amount is $170,284 and the recommendation is for only
$117,560.
Mr. Lindstrom said he had asked that this item be reconsidered. He did not find any new
information from staff stating how much of the increase is occasioned by cuts in Federal
programs. He remembers that the staff recommended that $152,000 be phased in over three
years. He feels strongly that if an agreement has been arrived at through negotiations with
other jurisdictions for a certain formula, and the amount of the budget has been agreed to by
staff, that the county should pay the share agreed to by staff according to the agreement.
Mr. Bowie said the main reason is that there was a $400,000 jump in the total amount
requested. Federal funds did drop $60,000, but state funds went up almost $200,000. Region
Ten is asking for as much as a 300 percent increase from some of the counties. Mr. Bowie
178B
March 20, 1985 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting)
said he did not know why the County's share went up $70,000 and was willing to go long with
staff's recommendation.
Mr. Lindstrom said the staff did not raise any objections to the fact that the County is
picking up at the local level much of what has been lost in Federal funds. Mr. Tucker said
that was not articulated, and it was difficult for the staff to justify how the County's
share increased so dramatically when the State share had also increased. Mr. Bowie said the
County is being asked for a 70 percent increase and there is no big expansion of programs.
Mr. Lindstrom said it would have been helpful to him if the staff had addressed that particu-
lar point. He also thinks that when an agreement has been made with other parties, the
County has to live with that agreement until is is changed. Mr. Bowie said when the other
parties don't pay their part of the expense, then there is no longer an agreement. Mr.
Henley said he feels the same way.
Mr. Agnor said he believes this is the first time that Region Ten has said they can gear
the local government's contribution to the purchase of services. Prior to this year, they
have said that they could not discriminate against any locality in Region Ten as to the type
of service provided. If the County had funded a full share in the past, it would have been
subsidizing other localities. Now, Region Ten says that if the County funds its full share,
it will receive the services, and any locality that does not fund its share will not receive
those services.
Visitors Bureau.
Executive:
The following memo dated March 19, 1985, was received from the County
"Please find attached a copy of the narrative part of the Visitor's Bureau
budget listing the objectives of the operation, and a description of the
current operations. The projection of brochures and guides, t he develop-
ment of the group tour business, and the advertising of this area in travel
publications has been in operation for five years and, as you know, is
targeted to increase the likelihood of visitors remaining the area longer.
The 85-86 budget is based on the continuation of the program.
I have reviewed with Mrs. Cochran, the Acting Director of the Bureau, the
elements of the budget, and confirmed there is no funding of convention
related activities. I requested information from her on the total budget
for a visitor's center operation only, without the marketing program, and
estimated from our discussion it would reduce the budget by $29,750 from
$199,616 to $169,850. It would reduce bureau-generated revenues in the sale
of blocks of tickets to group tour business by approximately $25,000, and it
would reduce the County's contribution by $1585 from the recommended
$45,405, or by $8,252 from the requested amount of $52,072.
I discussed with the City's Personnel Director the matter of the Manager's
salary and the advertisements for the position. The salary range has not
been changed, but the response to the advertisements did indicate the top of
the range would be used if a person with experience in tourist bureau
operations were employed. The range is $20,600 to $30,000, the advertise-
ment stated the salary would be $25,000 to $30,000, the budget was built on
the position being filled at the top of the scale. It was anticipated (or
hoped) that an assistant manger in another bureau somewhere else in the
Eastern United States would apply using the upper half of the range in the
ad. The position was advertised as requiring a bachelor's college degree
and considerable experience in the tourism business.
Having examined the questions raised in the work session, if it is the
Board's desire to reduce the County's cost, I recommend that the operation
be allowed to continue as it currently is operated, with the County's
contribution limited to an eight percent increase, or $2940, which would be
an appropriation of $39,670. This would be $12,402 less than requested,
$5735 less than recommended.
If the City followed suit, it would remove $37,206 from the Bureau's budget,
reducing the total budget from $199,616 to $162,410.
It is further recommended that the agreement creating the Thomas Jefferson
Visitor's Bureau be reviewed for revisions and updating prior to another
budget cycle. The review could be conducted by the Bureau's Commission, or
by a Committee of the staffs of the County, City, and Chamber of Commerce in
coordination with the Commission."
"Purpose and Objective: The purpose of the Visitor's Bureau is to increase
the dollars brought to the community by out of town visitors through the
promotion of Charlottesville as a travel destination - its attractions,
motels, restaurants, and retail businesses. The Bureau's objectives are to
produce the following cost-effective, attractive tools: a four-color
brochure (300,000); lodging/dining guide (100,000); calendar of events
(30,000); tour portfolio (500); fun for families guide (30,000); and area
maps (50,000). The Bureau will distribute these guides and brochures
effectively, through mailings and a paid distribution service.
The Bureau also plans to develop the group tour business. Through sales
efforts and service to the tour operator, the Bureau plans to increase the
number of buses coming to the area. The Bureau will participate in two
market places, two sales missions and/or bus shows, one mass mailing,
individual contacts (phone, mail, or familiarization tours). Group combina-
tion tickets will be available February 1985.
March 20, 1985 (AfternoOn-Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 8)
179
The Bureau also hopes to increase publicity and media coverage by developing
media contacts and providing assistance to writers, i.e. family tours.
Press kits for writers will be created and revised as needed. The Bureau
will also submit quarterly event calendars to magazines, newspapers (100).
There will be a major annual press release mailing to some 200 newspapers."
Mr. Fisher said he would recommend that the budget be frozen at its current total.
this operation first began, the County and the Chamber of Commerce were paying the same
amount. The County's share is now three times greater, and yet the Chamber has an equal
vote.
When
Mrs. Cooke asked what contribution is made to this operation by the operators of facilities
receiving publicity from the brochures published by the Bureau, or is the Chamber's contribu-
tion considered as that contribution. Mr. Agnor said that is correct. Mrs. Cooke asked if
Monticello, Ash Lawn and Michie Tavern are the recipients of free advertising? Mr. Agnor
said when the Bureau was first formed this was discussed. They argued that they spend
on-half a million dollars in advertising on their own and they claim that instead of contrib-
uting to the Bureau they would continue that practice and that would be beneficial to the
Visitors Bureau. Mrs. Cooke asked if the advertising that other commercial ventures do on
their own is taken into consideration as being beneficial to the community. Mr. Agnor said
no. When the Visitors Bureau first began they tried to solicity advertising monies from
those facilitated and that was their reply.
Mr. Bowie said he feels the Visitors Bureau helps the community in general, but he still
feels that the hotels and motels which receive the largest amount of money should be paying
for this service either through direct contribution or through the Chamber. Mr. Bowie said
he will support the freeze at this time, and suggested that the contract be renegotiated next
March.
Mr.L~-~dstrom asked how the costs of operating the Bureau have been affected since the
change in ownership of the building. Mr. Agnor said the Bureau pays a rent payment to the
Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation, whereas in the past they were housed at no cost. Mr.
Lindstrom asked if that is the amount shown in the budget for $27,433. Mr. Agnor said yes;
rent was partially funded in the current budget. He said that the Bureau is generating some
revenues.
Mr. Lindstrom said he agrees with the freeze. It is being operated at a significant
benefit for private enterprises, and if they do not feel it is worth contributing more, he
does not feel the County should pay. Mr. Agnor said the argument would be put forth that the
operators of gasoline stations benefit and do not pay for the service; the operators of
restaurants do not contribute; and the hotels/motels operators collect the county's transient
occupany tax, and do not receive any pay for that, although they only turnover those funds
once each year to the county. Mr. Lindstrom said if it were not for the lodging tax, he
would not be willing to support the Visitors Bureau at all.
It was agreed to freeze the amount of this budget at the current level.
that will reduce the overall budget by $8675.
Mr. Agnor said
Jefferson Area Board on Aging - RSVP Program. Mr. Agnor said the question concerns
whether the Board wants to fund the Home Repair Program or the RSVP Program. To refresh the
Board's memory, recommended was funding for the current JABA program at $6,408, with an
additional $5,708 for the RSVP program, an entirely new program. The Home Safety Repair
Program was also requested at $6,392 for a total of $19,208 for all JABA programs. Staff
recommended funding in the amount of $11,482 only.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the funding for the emergency housing assistance would be limited
to just owner-occcupied units. Mr. Tucker said the program proposed would not be so limited.
Mr. Lindstrom said, if the only way to fund the Home Safety Program is to shift money
from RSVP, he supports doing that and funding as a pilot program to get some data. He feels
it is an important project and there is no other way for some of these people to get assis-
tance. He has seen first hand some of the minor things that can be done to help an elderly
person live independently. He does not feel the amount requested for a pilot program is out
of line, particularly when there are so many people living in houses with problems, and in
houses that they do not own.
Mr. Bowie said he can see the need and agrees if the property is owner-occupied.
However, he has a problem with using taxpayers money to rehabilitate income properties.
knows there is a private sector movement to take care of this type of problem.
He
Mr. Lindstrom said he has thought a lot about the problem. If the County had a housing
standard code, a lot of these places would not be available for anybody to live in. Minor
repair items will not really increase the cost of property, but will make life a little more
liveable for people who are forced into these curcumstances.
Mr. Fisher said he thinks the issue is one of no recapture of funds for the public. If
this were a large-scale rehabilitation program, there would need to be some way to recapture
the costs. On such a small scale, trying to recapture would be prohibitively expensive. He
has been struggling with the issue, and feels that if this type of program is done for the
private property owner and not for others, there is an inconsistency. There is a difference
if a landlord won't fix up the property, is willing to have someone else do it, and then
raises the rent.
Mr. Henley said he would be willing to support the program for one year, with no commit-
ment that it will be funded another year, with the Board being furnished some information as
to what happens to the people living in the dwelling where these repairs are made.
i80
March 20, 1985 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 9)
Mr. Bowie asked if the use of money would be restricted to the purchase of materials.
Mr. Tucker said yes. The staff has recommended that this program be offered through AHIP in
collaboration with JABA since AHIP has the manpower necessary to make repairs. Mr. Agnor
said Mr. Gordon Walker had called and indicated that if the program went through AHIP, the
amount would need to be $10,000, but did not explain why. Mr. Lindstrom said he would agree
that the program be run through AHIP at a cost of $6,392, and that records be kept as to what
happens to these people. If JABA wants money another year, they need to keep records.
Mr. Henley said he will go along with that suggestion.
Mr. Way said he is "torn" by this request, and does not believe he can support the
concept. Mr. Lindstrom asked if he could support a smaller amount. Mr. Way said it bothers
him to go through AHIP and wondered if the $10,000 figure is due to administrative costs.
Mr. Henley said he thinks this could be just another of AHIP's programs. Mr. Fisher said
AHIP has never done any work on renter-occupied housing in the past. Mr. Bowie said he does
not believe they can work on such housing under their rules of procedure.
Mr. Lindstrom suggested that someone ask Mr. Walker why there needed to be an increased
amount and if a satisfactory answer is not received, the request just be dropped. Mr. Way
said the Board should insure that the funds are used strictly for materials and there is no
administrative overhead.
Mr. Fisher said there seems to be a consensus for $6,392 for this program. Mr. Agnor
said he has some information on the difference, which is for a part-time occupational thera-
pist to perform tasks associated with this program, with JABA providing $3,000 from a local
foundation for materials, $1,000 for in-kind costs for processing referrals and secretarial
support, plus $500 transportation for the person to do the work.
Mr. Bowie said that in that case, he withdraws his support of the request.
Mr. Lindstrom suggested that AHIP be asked if they would undertake the program if
provided with money for materials for safety-oriented projects. Mr. Tucker said that was the
intent of the staff's recommendation.
Mr. Agnor suggested the money be put in the Board's contingency account, with the
allocation to come later. Mr. Lindstrom suggested that it be limited to $5,000.
Registrar. Mr. Agnor said there was a question as to whether dividing the
Charlottesville Precinct would require any extra money, and the answer is yes. One voting
machine at a cost of $1500 must be purchased. There is also a need for $200 postage.
Social Services.
Mr. Agnor said the staff had a question about the compensation of the Welfare Board
members. They receive $33.33 per meeting, whereas members of other boards and commissions
receive only $25.00 perfmeeting. When this was discussed last summer, the staff did not
recommend that a change be made, but staff now recommends that $600 be taken from the social
services budget. Mr. Agnor said he will meet with the Social Services Board to explain what
the "Equalization of Pay" ordinace means, and if they agree, the ordinance will then be
amended to put that Board under the terms of that ordinance. Mr. Agnor said he does not
believe he will have trouble explaining the situation. The amount now being paid under terms
of the State Code is not a mandatory amount. The Board members agreed to this recommenda-
tion.
VPI-SU Extension Service. Mr. Agnor said the State has just provided information this
week on salaries for extension agents. They are providing a 13.6 percent cost of living
increase, and this increases the County's share by $2550.
Mr. Henley asked if the County is picking up the cost of the agent that is being
dropped. Mr. Agnor said no. They had requested five agents, and the state is providing four
agents, and if the agent who is on extended leave does not return to work, they will lose
that position and have only three agents. If that happens, the County's expenditure will
drop also. However, at this time, $2550 must be added because of the salary increases.
The Board members agreed.
Education:
a. Ten new positions from middle schools vs. seven positions currently proposed;
Mr. Fisher said the first question concerns the number of new teaching positions for
which the Board wants to provide funding.
Mr. Agnor drew the Boards' attention the the following calculation made by Mr. David
Papenf~e:
Reduce additional teaching positions by three (total additional
elementary teachers = 7)
Teacher (-3) $-60,516
Fringe Benefits -14,484
Total $-75,000
180A
March 20, 1985 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting)
Mr. Lindstrom said he supports the move to reduce the teaching staff by the three
additional positions. Mr. Bowie agreed.
Mr. Fisher said he thinks the need for additional teachers is real in the primary
grades. He is convinced by the information seen on Monday that there is a need to move some
positions. If reductions are not maf~ in the middle schools now, and staff is increased at
the elementary level, as this increase~in student population moves through the system, the
schools will be overstaffed elsewhere. He feels there is a need for a reallocation of people
in order to maintain the recommended funding level for salaries.
Mrs. Cooke said fn relation to the discussion on Monday about the middle schools, she
does not think the Boar~ has all the information necessary to show the reasons for the extra
curricular activities and she needs to know if if there is anything new she should know about
those activities, before she makes a final decision on this matter.
Mr. Charles Armstrong said he has had experience at all three levels of teaching, and
some thought must be given as to why the middle school program was created in the county
originally. Part of it was that kindergarten was mandated by the State, so a grade had to be
moved out of the elementary schools, and education people felt that in every education system
there had to be a chance for every child to succeed in something every day. At that time,
there were a lot of problems at the junior high school level. When the middle school program
started, it did not add that many positions, since only one period was added to the school
day. Mr. Armstrong said the Board of Supervisors has not been kept up to date on what the
middle school program is about. The County is following the curriculum which has been
developed by the State. Numbers can be looked at, but there is a need to also look at the
students.
Mr. Fisher said he does not disagree, but is a drop in vandalism worth having all of
these exploratory classes in the middle schools. Mr. Armstrong said he was really trying to
indicate that not many positions were added for the middle school program. The County had to
go to the middle school program before it was ready because the School Board did not want to
buy trailers in order to accommodate the kindergartens. Actually all that was done was to
add a period to a teachers course load. Also, if you look at the vocational program, those
students are usually in a lab type situation and there are a limited number of students that
can be in a program.
Mr. Richard Glowinski said a lot of educational studies show that there is not a lot of
brain growth during this period in a child's life, but there is a lot of physical growth.
The exploratory classes give the kids sometime to expend a lot of their energy, and also feel
successful. As far as the 137 classes that had seven or less students, that lists included a
lot of special education classes.
Mr. Bowie disagreed saying he did not have any special education classes on his list.
Mr. Glowinski said they may not look like special education classes, but they are the remedi-
al type classes, all of the resource teachers are special education teachers.
Mr. Lindstrom said he spent a lot of time looking at that list and he can't believe
there are not three more teaching positions that can't. Mr. Bowie said nobody objects to the
middle school system, and the validity of Mr. Glowinski's remarks. He thinks the way it was
described is the way it was supposed to be originally. There are 15 teachers who teach
nothing by exploratory classes, and there are 64 different choices. There is an obligation
for running the total system efficiently, and Mr. Bowie said he will still support the
transfer of ten teachers.
Mr. Way said he can support the recommendation to reduce the teaching staff by ten
positions. Mr. Fisher said it appears the public hearing will be held on the funding of
seven new positions.
Mr. Fisher next moved the Board's attention to question
b. Reconsideration of administrative merit pay plan;
The following figures are from a memorandum from David Papenfuse;
Fund the merit pool for one-third of eligible employes at 7 1/2 percent
and one-third eligible employees at 5 percent
Total administrative base FY 84-85 = $1,943,069
1/3 = $647,690
647,690 X 7 1/2 percent = $48,577
647,690 X 5 percent = 32,385
$80,962
Current budget for merit = $94,000
Alternative merit funding = 80,962
Reduction of merit
-$13,038
Mr. Agnor said this was presented to this Board last fall and there were no changes
recommended. The funds have been in the budget since the beginning of the School year. The
dollars being looked at for next year are to fund this first years program. Any amendments
to that program would seem to be appropriate to be made next year before the teachers start
their contract year. In terms of changing the merit plan to accommodate the parameters of
the General Government versus the School System merit plan, he hoped the changes would not be
180B
March 20, 1985 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 11)
part of the 1985-86 budget cycle.
employees begins this month.
The program is already in progress, and evaluation of
Mr. Fisher said when this plan was presented to this Board by the School Board, this
Board was not asked if it agreed. The figures provided by Mr. Papenfuse assume that only the
bottom step will be dropped, and he does not believe that is what this Board was talking
about.
Mr. Lindstrom said an additional $22,000 could be saved if the top step were dropped,
and the steps became five percent and two and one-half percent. He said he agrees with Mr.
Agnor in that the program is established and there are people who are operating under the
expectation that the plan will apply to them, so he feels it would be unfair to change it at
this item. He has no problem with indicating that he thinks the program should be changed in
the future. He does not have any problem with cutting the total amount that is being funded
all long as it is understood that if there is more than a third who deserve an increase, the
money will be provided, but in terms of budgeting for the program itself, he has no problem
putting that on the same basis as the county is on.
Mr. Henley said he may have misunderstood, but he thought that if an administrators work
was unsatisfactory, that employee would not get any amount, and if it was satisfactory, that
employee would get five percent, and for exceptional work the increase would be seven and
one-half.
Mr. Fisher said the Director of Personnel provided the Board with information on Monday
about salary scales, and this plan will give administrators an opportunity to go from a zero
percent increase to eleven and one-half percent with this current pay plan. The Board has
encouraged the School Board to go forward with a merit plan and this is what they have come
up with. Mr. Fisher said he does not particularly care for it, but does feel some obligation
to support it. Mr. Fisher asked if there was a consensus to leave this item at what the
County Executive has recommended.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the plan is based on 85 percent. Mr. Agnor said yes. That will
be 85 percent total employees getting some merit increases. Mr. Lindstrom said he does not
have any problem funding this if it is understood that there will be no further funds added.
Mr. Agnor said that sometimes funds can be found in operational accounts. Mr. Lindstrom said
he would not expect the School Board to come back and ask for additional funds to provide the
merit increase. Mr. Agnor said he has recommended that the merit system be funded at
$100,000. Mr. Lindstrom said the Board needs to talk about this item at the next joint
meeting with the School Board.
Ce
discussion of proposed retirement plan for school bus drivers and other part-time
employees.
Mr. Agnor recommended that this amount be kept in the budget on the condition that staff
examine the program before it is finalized. He understands that school bus drivers have
asked for this benefit for years. A determination should be made with the Board of Supervi-
sors as to its validity to part-time employees in General government also. After a study, if
the benefit is found to not have too much of an impact, then the benefit should be offered.
Mr. Fisher suggested that the amount be left in the School Board's budget as a contin-
gency amount with the understanding that the two boards must get together on a decision.
Mr. Fisher asked if there were any other matters which are incomplete concerning the
School budget. Mr. Agnor said Mr. Papenfuse has noted that by cutting the number of staff
positions it cuts out $7000 in revenues from the State. In order to keep a balanced budget
an adjustment needs to be made. Mr. Henley said he is willing to go along with the sugges-
tion.
Mr. Agnor said General Government and the School System share in the cost of the Person-
nel Department. The School System had in their budget and appropriation for Unemployment
Insurance, and in the General Government budget that amount was carried as a separate item in
another category. Mr. Agnor said he told Mr. Papenfuse that the General Government would not
to share in the cost of the unemployment category. Also listed in the Personnel budget was
an item covering teacher recruitment, and General Government will not share in that cost.
Mr. Papenfuse agreed but had calculated his revenues on the basis of General Government
paying a pro rate share of the entire personnel budget. Deleting a share of the two items
mentioned drops his revenue by $14,440, so local funds from the General Fund will have to be
increased by $14,440 to make up that difference.
Mr. Agnor said the American Red Cross had originally requested $9375 from the County,
but was recommended for no funding. At the work session this week, the Board made no move to
change the recommendation. Today a revised request was received in the mail for $3000.
There was no motion for a change.
Mr. Way said he has one item he would like to discuss and that relates to the request
from the Library. He said he was surprised to see the number of hours of operation at
Scottsville and Crozet branches. He concurs that the Crozet Library needed the 34 hours of
operation, but on the other hand, he believes that the Library in Scotsville, which has a
tremendous amount of additional circulation, needs additional hours of operation also. The
work hours of the Librarian have only increased by five since 1974. She performs many duties
for which she is not paid. He would like to'suggest that the number of hours for the Librar-
ian be increased by five hours per week or $2227 per year. This is in accordance with what
the Regional Library Director has recommended. Mr. Way said the Board may want to take the
position that what goes on in the branch libraries in Crozet and $cottsville will be
181
March 20, 1985 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 12)
identical and funded exactly the same way. He said that may not be exactly true, and even by
increasing the hours in Scottsville the people will not be paid for what they are doing.
Mr. Fisher asked if this will raise the hours per week to 39. Mr. Way said the five
hours is for two employees, and he does not mean that the Library has to be open those hours,
simply that the employees need that much time to do setting up and clerical work.
Mrs. Cooke said she has no problem with the request. Mr. Fisher said part of the
problem is that the County does not recover any cost from people lying in adjQining jurisdic-
tions who use the Scottsville Library. Mr. Way said there are 921 people registered with the
library; 34 from Fluvanna and 21 from Buckingham. Those people pay more for their library
cards.
Mr. Henley said he will support the request. Mr. Way said this is for five additional
hours at a cost of $2227. He feels that the time will come when the Board has to determine
how much activity will be allowed in the branch libraries. Mr. Henley said the branches do
use a lot of volunteers. The other Board members agreed to the request.
Mr. Lindstrom said he has a suggestion. In the years in which there is a reappraisal of
real property, and the County gets additional revenues through the reassessment process, he
would suggest that the County Executive's recommendation for a budget in that year be based
on unincreased revenues, and then would show the increase attributable to the reassessment.
The recommendation would then reflect the increased revenues as a tax rate decrease. If all
or any portion of that increased revenue were applied to programs, that would show the County
Executive's proposal. The Board would then see a budget which reflected a natural increase
in the tax base, but one which did not reflect the increased revenues resulting from the
reassessment. The Board could then look at the kinds of programs to be funded without that
automatic tax increase which comes about every two years. This would also recognize that
there are tremendous needs to be funded, and then the increase could be considered for
funding new or expanded programs.
Mr. Lindstrom said he likes this approach because he feels that in the future the amount
of this increased tax base will diminish, and it is a way of being accountable to the citi-
zens. A natural increase in the tax base is one thing, but a reassessment is not related to
any automatic need for an increase in services, and he feels the Board should justify how
that amount is spent. He would focus everybody on the fact that the reassessment really does
not represent a tax increase to the citizens.
Mr. Agnor said there is a state law which requires the county to advertise a tax rate
increase when a reassessment brings in more than a one percent increase over the previous
reassessment.
Mr. Fisher said by telling everybody in advance that they could have only the inflation
base as an increase for next year, this year's budget process was not far from that process.
However, by the time the Board got the budget, that "pot" had become a target for every
request so there was an expectation that it would all be spent. Mr. Fisher said the one
thin~ he has learned the past few weeks is that the strongest control on expenditures is to
inhibit requests rather than to try and reject the requests once they are made. Mr. Fisher
said Mr. ~trom's idea of building the budget each year on the previous budget would be
awfully pain~ul during times of large inflationary increases. Mr. Lindstrom said that is the
case every other year; the year in which there is no reassessment.
Mr. Bowie said he is amazed each year at how little input the Board really has on the
expenditure of over $40 million. He really feels the Board should give some guidance before
the budget cycle begins. He would be willing to say whether he will support a tax increase,
or new positions, as guidance before the whole thing is done. Instead of presenting the
Board with 600 pages of materials on which it spends four afternoons, plus reading time at
home, Mr. Bowie said he would almost prefer to go to a flat freeze, and anything above the
freeze would have to be justified separately.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if there were some middle ground in this discussion. He does not
want to make the budget process worse than it is, and suggested that when the County Execu-
tive makes his initial revenue projections, that there be one work session by the Board to
discuss and set down some general guidelines. Mr. Agnor said that would be very helpful ~to
the staff.
Mr. Fisher said the Board did that a few years ago, but could not come to any agreement
as to guidelines, and then gave up on it.
Mr. Bowie suggested that there be a public hearing to take comments on the next budget,
perhaps in September. Mr. Lindstrom said before the Board leaves this discussion, he would
like to know where the Board members stand. Mr. Bowie said to do it at the beginning of each
budget cycle. Mr. Fisher said he can agree. Mr. Way said it sounds like a good idea. Mr.
Agnor said the staff will then present in either September or October an estimate of revenues
so the Board can talk about parameters.
Mr. Agnor presented to the Board the following memorandum from Mr. Ray B. Jones, Deputy
'County Executive, dated March 19, 1985, on the Fund Balance of the Capital Improvement
Program Fund:
"At the work session on March 13, Mr. Lindstrom requested the current
unallocated balance of the Capitial Improvement Fund. Since that time, I
requested the Director of Finance to provide the unallocated balance plus
any excess monies in the General Fund that could be allocated to future
capitial improvements. The amounts are as follows.
182
March 20, 1985 (Afternoon-Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 13)
Current unallocated C.I.P. Fund Balance
Additional transfer from the General Fund
$ 300,000
4,000,000
Sub-Total
$ 4,300,000
Proposed transfer per 1985-86 budget
1,000,000
Total Local Money Available
$ 5,300,000
As you know, the above does not anticipate the use of split tax billing,
sale of property or borrowings.
It is anticipated the General Fund will have approximately $11 million on
June 30, 1985. The operating capital needs (excess of expenditures over
revenues available will approach $7 million in early FY 85-86 based on the
recommended budget."
Mr. Fisher said only one agency, out of all of the requests, had its request cut, and
that is of Madison House. Madison House provides a lot of these agencies with their volun-
teers, and he thinks a cut will result in their taking less interest in County projects. He
advocates that the recommendation be raised by $900 back to the current level of $3000.
Mr. Agnor said the amount recommended by the staff equated to what the City provides
them.
Mrs. Cooke said she has no problem with the staff's recommendation. She thinks the City
is the main recepient of their volunteer work. Mr. Henley said he did not want to make that
a funding formula. Mr. Lindstrom said he did not mind allocating the extra $900. He knows
they do a lot of work and it appears they are trying to expand further into the County. Mr.
Way said he will support Mr. Fisher's request.
Mr. Bowie asked why the County is paying for so many volunteers when the RSVP Program
has been included for $5000. Mr. Fisher said these people recruit the volunteers. Mr.
Lindstrom said he wanted to support that program for $6300 and it was dropped by to $5000, so
the extra $900 is available. Mr. Fisher said he thinks he has heard enough votes to get that
amount included.
Mr. Fisher asked the net .change to the entire budget. Mr. Agnor said it is a $59,784
reduction. Mr. Lindstrom asked how this relates to the personal property rate. Mr. Agnor
said it is approximately five cents per $100.
Mr. Lindstrom said the problem is that more than $400,000 was taken from the General
Fund Carry-Over Balance to fund this budget. Mr. Agnor said that amount is for non-recurring
costs, so will not create a future problem. Mr. Fisher said if this was not done, that money
would have been available for capital needs. Mr. Agnor recommended that the $59,784 reduc-
tion be put into a contingency account in the event of unexpected expenditures during the
next fiscal year.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Way, to adopt all of the
changes discussed to be incorporated into the budget for public hearing purposes. Roll was
called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henely, Lindstrom and Way.
None
Agenda Item No. 3. Set Tax Rates
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom to set for public hearing purposes, a tax rate of
$0.77/$100 on real property; $4.50/$100 on personal property; $4.50/$100 on machinery and
tools; $0.77/$100 on mobile homes; $4.50/$100 on unequalized assessments of public service
property; $0.77/$100 on assessed value of public service on equalized assessments. 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. 4. Order Public hearing on 1985-86 Albemarle County budget.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Way, to advertise for a public
hearing on April 3, 1985, on the 1985-86 Albemarle County Budget, and a public hearing on a
tax increase occasioned by the reassessment as required by Code Section 58.1-3329. 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. 5. Other Matters Not on the Agenda from the Board and Public.
were no other matters presented.
There
Agenda Item No. 6. Adjourn.
Board, the meeting was adjourned.
At 4:55 P.M., with no further business to come before the
/