Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
1984-03-21 adj
March ~, 1984 (~fternoon Meeting--~djourned from March 14, 1984~ March , 1984 (Regular Day Meeting~ 039 Agenda Item No. 18, Appointments. Mr. Henley nominated and offered motion to appoint Mr. Louis Rauch of Crozet to the Equalization Board with said term to expire on December 31, 1984. Mr. Way seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley and Way. None. Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Lindstrom. Agenda Item No. 19. Other Matters Not on the Agenda. There were none offered. Agenda Item No. 22. At 5:32 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mr. Way, to adjourn to March 21, 1984, at 1:00 P.M. for a work session on the 1.984-85 Budget. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Lindstrom. ~HAIRMAN March 21, 1984 (Afternoon Meeting--Adjourned from March 14, 1984) An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on March 21, 1984, at 1:00 P.M., in Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesvill~ Virginia; said meeting being adjourned from March 14, 1984. Present: Mr. Frederick R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke (Arrived at 1:05 P.M.), Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom and Peter T. Way. Absent: None. ~0fficers Present: CoUnty Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; Deputy County Executive, Ray B. Jones and Deputy County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr. 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: 1984-85 County Budget. Agenda Item No. 2a) Education. The followi Mr. Charles S. Armstrong, Mrs. Jessie Haden, Mess Perkins, Robert E. Taylor, Charles R. Tolbert, an Education staff members were present: Carlos Gut Papenfuse, Assistant Superintendent for Finance a ag School Board members were present: rs. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr., Walter R. Mrs. Sally H. Thomas. The following ierrez, School Superintendent, and David ad Administration. Dr. Gutierrez said budget year 1983-84 is th~ first year under the "cost center" approach introduced by Mr. Papenfuse and this pro~ess has worked well. The principals have reported feeling good about the process sinc~ they are directly involved. At this time, it is also expected that the fiscal year will end without a deficit. School administr~ recently received permission from the School Board to use five percent of the discretionary funds which had been frozen, t As for the 1984-85 budget, at least ninety-five percent of the objectives were easily met. Some capital requests will not be met and a "hold" has been placed on some programs started in earlier years where equipment cannot be purchased. Computer education is one of these programs. Also, the School Board is not funding as many school buses as it had been hoped to purchase, but this proposed budget meets major goals; one of those being salaries for teachers. The proposed compensation plan will place Albemarle County in the top half of the school divisions in Virginia. The central office staff has been reorganized and four positions eliminated. The teaching staff is to be reduced by thirty full-time equivalent positions although the actual number of people affeCted is thirty-nine due to some being teacher aid positions. Deletions of these positions will be through attrition if at all possible. Dr. Gutierrez said his staff has developed a teacher evaluation plan which has not yet been approved by the School Board. By July 1, the staff will also have completed an administrative evaluation plan. A middle school study will soon be completed. An updated five-year plan has just been completed. As far as school redistricting is concerned, the major hurdles are behind. There will be more efficient utilization of school buildings, with most buildings being used at close to eighty percent of capacity. Dr. Gutierrez said many excellent things are happening in all of the schools and he is proud of his administrative cabinet. This group has set a high tone of expectations for all employees. The message has gone out that performance and results are expected from employees and nothing less will be tolerated. He then turned the meeting over to Mr. Papenfuse and asked the Board's support now and in the years to come. 04O March 21, 1984 (Afternoon Meeting--Adjourned from Marchll4, 1984) Mr. ?apenfuse said he feels better coming before the Board with the proposed budget than he did last year. He said an overview of the proposed budget shows that the schools will be operating with thirty fewer students and one less school fa6ility; Greenwood School. This is reflected in the revenues to be received and the expenses which will be incurred next year. This budget was formulated with the central office acting as a clearing center, compiling the budget, making adjustments and recommendations. The budget was formulated at the building level by principals, program administrators, directors and supervisors. This was done for accountability. If a change occurs.at the building level, it is the responsibility of that principal to request a change. Mr. Papenfuse said the total budget request, exclusive of Federal programs, is $29,178,660. This represents an 8.7 percent increase in operating expenses. There is a $2.3 million increase in compensation; $2.1 million is reflected in salaries and fixed costs. There are thirty fewer teaching positions, four fewer admnistrative positions, and six fewer central office administrative' positions. Fixed costs show a ninety-one percent increase. The increase in the teacher base pay scale is ten percent not including instructional or education stipends. One controversial item in the proposed budget is an eight percent aggregate amount set aside for an increase to administrative personnel. Mr. Papenfuse said he would like to set the record straight. At the time the budget was being developed, there was a reorganizational study underway to determine the number of administrators that should be on staff. Also, there was to be a revamping of the administrative compensation scale including equity adjustments for the people who are now being paid less than the minimum that position would normally be expected to be paid. The staff chose a figure of eight percent based on the general government figure of five percent for a cost-of-living increase and three percent for merit increases. The School Board, at this time, does not have any account for merit increases. It was also decided to use eight percent based on recent history issued by the Personnel Department that seventy-five percent of the general government employees are expected to receive a merit increase this year; one-half of those employees receiving a two and one-half percent increase, and the other one-half receiving a five percent increase. Because of this, it was felt that about seventy-five percent of general government employees would receive at least seven and one-half percent during the year. Mr. Papenfuse said he was trying to make sure that the School Board's aggregate amount included what the general government carried as a base step plus a merit step. Mr. Fisher said that is not the way he understands the general government situation. Mr. Papenfuse asked if he could return and discuss that question later. He then continued with his presentation and said that the rate paid on retirement for educators increases by eight percent for next year. The social security rate increases from seven to 7.05 percent. An eight percent increase in salary has been budgeted for classified individuals in the educator group. In that classified section are included two new positions; one is the director of personnel; and a new clerk. The current general government personnel employee is also being switched to the school budget. Operating expenses show an. increase of 7.2 percent. One major item is an $88,000 item for repair parts for school buses and also general upgrading of school facilities. There is a 2.8 percent increase shown for electrical service. Custodial supplies are shown as increasing by fifty percent based on actual experience this current year. Next year it is expected that custodial services will be revised thus taking this particular responsibility from the principals in most cases and handling custodial services on a county-wide administrative basis. The appropriation for the vocational-technical center is shown as increasing 4.6 percent; printing costs increase twenty percent due to the addition of a personnel office; capital outlays are down $46,040. No funds are set aside for purchase of computers, but the right is being reserved to trade operational costs of hardware for fine tuning. Current lease commitments on word processors, copiers, and computers is $96,000. This budget shows $50,000 for vocational equipment, but this is reimbursed by the State on a sharing basis. Maintenance equipment has been budgeted at $31,950 for a tractor, plus trade-in on a pick-up truck or dump truck, and $162,000 for purchase of six replacement school buses. Mr. Papenfuse said Mr. Ray Jones had recently informed him that he was using the wrong rate for calculating 1985 social security taxes, and this had the effect of reducing both expenditures'and revenues in the "recovered cost" category. House Bill 30 adopted by the legislature reduced "remedial education aid" by $40,799. It also eliminated funding for community education and increased payments for foster homes by $27,000. The net result of these changes is a $16,574 shortfall in revenues in the proposed budget. Mr. Papenfuse said he has added that amount as an additional requirement from local funding if the proposed budget is passed by the Board of Supervisors as presented to them by the School Board. Mr. Papenfuse said he projects no great increase in sales tax revenues; basic aid is decreased by $224,000 due to a change in the composite index from .5542 to .6180. (The composite index is based on personal income in the County and the State calculates the county's ability to pay at sixty-two percent of educational costs.) A decrease in revenues is shown for maintenance vehicular fees. For the first year, there is a revenue item shown for recovery of costs on the Personnel Department based on the per capita of general government and school personnel. Mr. Papenfuse then presented some figures in relation to the cost center concept, byr departments. The office of the Superintendent, Personnel Department, and Business and Finance sections are carried as three separate categories in this budget for the 1984-85 year. The total of operating expenses for administration is increased by 1.6 percent; administration and program costs for instruction are decreased by 1.46 percent; both instructional programs in the schools and operation of physical plants have increased by 8.84 percent; activities increase because of a reassignment of certain costs; maintenance particularly for spare parts, is increased by $55,000; transportation operating expenses increases by $14,000; costs of the maintenance garage are increased by $38,000; the total of all operating expenses increased by 7.18 percent. As for capital expenditures, the original budget request carried about $700,000, but that was cut down to about $400,000. March 21, 1984 (Afternoon Meeting--Adjourned from March 14, 1984) O4] The most controversial item was the elimination of purchasing six replacement buses. The original request was to replace twelve, and that was cut to only six. The School Board's priorities were (in order): salaries, operating expenses, and buses. The Board had at one time recommended replacing buses on a ten-year cycle. There are 130 buses in the fleet at this time, and adhering to that policy would require replacing 13 buses each year. Mr. Papenfuse said he feels the buses can run longer than ten years, and there were other priorities to be considered. Mr. Papenfuse said the School Board has indicated its intent to give school buses a higher priority in next year's budget, but it was not possible to replace as many as recommended in this one year within the limited resources available. This concluded Mr. Papenfuse's initial presentation of the School budget for 1984-85. Mr. Fisher expressed his appreciation for the presentation, particularly the graphics contained in the budget document. He asked if any of the Board members had questions. Mr. Way asked Mr. Agnor to comment on the increase in salary 'recommended for administratiw personnel and to compare that increase with that recommended for general government employees. Mr. Agnor said he finds Mr. ?apenfuse's percentages high. The general government employees are in the first year of a new merit system which contains two steps. Prior to this plan, the merit system, since its inception in 1974, had contained one five percent step. In those nine years,the percentage of employees who received a merit increase fluctuated between twenty-seven and thirty-five percent of employees. With the new two step plan, it is expected that it will result in a more relaxed merit program in terms of the number of people who may be eligible for a merit, but it is not expected to increase the dollar amount calculated in prior years on the one step system. Through February of this year (eight months into the plan) forty-seven employees had been awarded a five percent merit, and forty-two employees had been awarded a two and one-half percent merit. Of the total general government work force, that number represents about thirty percent of eligible employees. Sufficient funds to fund thirty-five percent of the employees has been included in the budget for next year. In dollars, that represents eight-tenths of one percent of the total payroll. Mr. Agnor said the general government staff has a meeting at the end of this month to review progress under this two-step plan, and if that review shows that seventyfive percent of the employees are being given merit increases, Mr. Agnor said he will assure the Board that the merit system will be tightened. Although "merit" should be acknowledged, the system has to retain some meaning and not be a wholesale system of giving pay increases. Mr. Fisher asked if Mr. Agnor was saying that a five percent base increase plus eight-tenths of one percent for a merit increase, would give an overall increase of 5.8 percent increase to general government employees. Mr. Agnor said that is correct if the increase were given to all employees at the same time. The merit pool shows an appropriation of $47,250, and out of a total payroll and fringe program of $5.9 million, that is eight- tenths of one percent available for a merit program. Mr. Fisher said that was his original thought. An eight percent across-the-board increase on July 1 is considerably higher than what is proposed for general government employees. Mr. Papenfuse Said that specific individuals in the county system will make more than eight percent within the year if they receive the five percent merit. Mr. Fisher said that is only about one-fourth of the employees. Mr. Bowie said that historically, increases have been granted to only about one-third of general government employees. This school budget not only says that everybody will earn more money, but they will earn far more than the merit amount which will be granted general county employees. Mr. Papenfuse said that is not exactly correct. There being no plan in effect at this time on which to base calculations, and not knowing the exact number of staff at the time this calculation was made, nor exactly what increase would be proposed for the teaching staff, a figure of eight percent was chosen to work with; this would give a five percent increase on the base and three percent merit increase. Mr. Fisher said that figure would give all of the administrative staff an eight percent increase. Mr. Papenfuse said this figure is used for budgetary purposes. No plan for administrators had been reviewed or adopted by the School Board at this date. In past years, a listing of individuals and proposed salaries has been presented, but this year, rather than bringing that list to the Board, an amount of money equaling eight percent of the administrative proposed salaries was set aside as a pool for implementation of such a plan when adopted. Mr. Fisher asked if school secretaries and custodians are on a pay scale similar to that for the general government employees. Mr. Papenfuse said they are on the same plan, although he did not think the plans compare in steps. Mr. Fisher said the general government employees wen~ through quite an analysis a few years ago to find out what salaries of different classes of employees should be, and the Board then funded a significant increase to bring all classified employees up to the beginning step of their position on the pay scale. He asked if the School~Board had done likewise for these employees. Mr. Papenfuse said the School Board adopted the same plan as that for general county employees when the study was reviewed by the Professional Group, but School employees are listed in a lower step because they have not been part of a merit increase system. Mr. Fisher said that ev.ery year during discussion of the budget, he hears that some plan will go into effect the next year. Mr. Papenfuse said all employees were put on the pay scale this year, and merit step increases were granted this year. Mr. Way said he would encourage the staff to have both school and general county personnel classified much the same. Mr. Papenfuse said the proposal going to the School BoArd will align the classified and school administrative positions with the County system of ranking and rating employees. Mr. Agnor said it is his staff's understanding that the eight percent aggregate amount proposed will be required to put a revised plan into effect. Neither the School Board nor t~e School staff know the exact amount of dollars required for such a plan at this time. Mr. Papenfuse said that is correct; some people could receive considerably higher than eight percent through an equity adjustment. Mr. Way asked the definition of "equity adjustment". Mr. Papenfuse said there could be a person in a position who might be making several thousand dollars less than the first step on the plan for such a position. If that person is doing the work the job calls for, that person should be compensated at least at the minimum step for that position, since if a new person were hired, they would begin in the first step of the salary for that position. It is possible that a few people might be granted as much as twenty percenv to bring that salary up to the minimum for the 042 March 21, 1984 (Afternoon Meeting--Adjourned from March ~4, 1984) position currently being served. Mr. Agnor said the opposite of that theory also needs to be explained. If it is found that a person in a certain position is making well above the~ recommended salary scale, that person would not have a reduction in salary, but instead their salary would be frozen until the pay plan catches up with the salary they are receiving. Mr. Bowie asked the highest percentage increase for any administrator. Mr. ?apenfuse said he does not know at this time. Mr. Bowie asked for an average figure. Mr. Papenfuse said trying to average is how the eight percent figure was derived. The figure was simply picked out of the air, considering a five percent salary adjustment, and a three percent merit adjustment, hoping that more than fifty percent of the administrators are rated as meritorious. This eight percent figure should be enough to fund the upgrading of the administrative salary scale, and give everyone a proper increase; it was an aggregate amount. Mr. Bowie asked if it would not be better to appropriate the correct amount. Mr. Papenfuse said it would, but for this budget, the exact figure is not known. Mr. Way said there are many ways of getting people into the administrative category. He hopes that the average increase for principals, assistant principals and central office personnel will not go beyond the eight percent and will actually be more in line with the amount recommended for general government employees. Mr. Way said to go beyond that amount at this time does not seem to be the right thing to do. Mr. Papenfuse said the School Board will have to consider that with the fifteen percent increase proposed for teachers. There may be some teachers whose salary exceeds that of an assistant principal, and in a few cases, that of a principal. Mr. Bowie said he does not object to what has been proposed for teachers' salaries. However, the percentage of increase should be the same for all county employees, whether or not the School Board chooses to put into effect a merit system. Using eight percent as an average figure is considerably higher than that proposed for general government employees, but the step adjustments and job analyses is an entirely different thing. Mr. Papenfuse suggested that if a review of the performance of administrators showed that eighty percent deserved a merit increase, on the county system that would not be possible because the system is being administered over a larger base. Mr. Fisher said there is a problem with the definition of what constitutes a merit system. Eighty percent, in his opinion, is not a true figure and would represent a demerit for the other twenty percent. Mr. Fisher noted that on a sheet in the budget entitled "Compensation" it shows categories such as Superintendent - eight percent; assistant superintendent - eight percent; directors - eight percent; supervisory and clerical - twelve percent. This leads everyone to expect that each of the categories shown will get the eight percent increase. In budgeting for a merit system that is not in effect, it would probably be best to put the total amount for increases in a separate item and disperse the funds to the various categories at a later time. Mr. Fisher said to even consider eight percent, the figure is too high. Mr. Henley said the worse thing he sees is having everybody's name or position by the eight percent figure. Mr. Papenfuse said those are accounts, and not individuals. Mr. Henley said by listing eight percent by a certain position it leads the person holding that position into thinking that he/she will get an eight percent increase. Mr. Henley said he thinks this idea should be handled as in the general county government by putting, the amount for an increase into a separate category. He also felt that this group of employees should get no higher increase than that proposed for general county employees. He felt the eight percent figure is a bit high. Mr. Agnor said a positive factor in this change is that the classified employees will no longer have their salaries factored on the teaching scale. That has been a problem for this Board for a number of years. In the future, the teaching scale will be for teachers only. Mr. Fisher agreed that this is probably the right thing to do. Mr. Way said he appreciates all the work which has gone into formulating this school budget. He believes the vast majority of employees are extremely dedicated. Mr. Way said he has children in the County school system and he appreciates what the school people are doing. Mr. Way said he favors ninety-five percent of the proposed school budget basically as presented. He is particularly pleased about what has been happening with the teachers. He feels the fifteen percent increase is deserved in most instances, and he is pleased that the County will be able to grant such an increase, and hopes that the following year there will also be an increase because he feels it is long overdue. He had hoped that the long-term teachers might have been granted a larger increase since they receive only about a five percent increase. Mr. Way said that in a year when the Board has done as much as it has for the teachers, it is not too much to expect less for the administrators, but he is not going to argue the point. He said he would like to recommend that the School Board look at other ways to compensate teachers, and he expressed a hope that there can be a joint meeting soon to pursue the idea. Mr. Way said he thinks there should be some kind of performance pay system for teachers and it appears that the School Board is beginning to move in that direction. Mr. Lindstrom asked about the increase shown for supervisors and clerical positions and asked if the 12.09 percent increase in this category is occasioned by the addition o£ just one person. Mr. Papenfuse said that amount covers two positions, one general government employee being transferred to the Personnel Department, and the addition of a personnel clerk. Also, the number of bus drivers increases from 125 to 128. It is expected that three additional drivers will be needed for the pairing of Meriwether Lewis and Murray Schools. Mr. Henley mentioned that the requested amount for substitute teachers has risen substantially. Mr. Papenfuse said part of that came about because that item was underbudgeted in the current year. There is currently a request pending from the School Board to make some changes in the 1983-84 School budget for this very item. Mr. ?apenfuse said it is hoped that upgrading teacher salaries will help with absenteeism. Mr. Way asked if the money is going to make the teachers healthier. Mr. Papenfuse said it may improve their attitudes and make them less disgruntled. It is hard for the administration to determine how much absenteeism can be attributed to sickness and how much is attributable to attitude. March 21, 1984 (Afternoon Meeting--Adjourned from March 14,1984) Mr. Fisher said the Board members had received a memorandum from Mr. Papenfuse giving a mid-year update on revenues. He asked if "mid-year" indicates December 31. Mr. Papenfuse said that mid-year for the school system is half way through the teaching year, or through January. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Papenfuse if he is routinely making monthly projections of revenues and expenditures. Mr. Papenfuse said yes, at this time it appears that the only item that may impact revenues is sales tax collections. It appears that more funds may be collected than the amount estimated. Mr. Fisher referred to the first sentence in Mr. Papenfuse's memorandum of March 16, 1984 which follows: "TO: FROM: SUBJECT: REFERENCE: Lettie E. Neher, Clerk, Albemarle County Board of Supervisors David C. Papenfuse, Assistant Superintendent, Finance and Administration Albemarle County Public Schools 1984-85 Education Budget Your Memo Dated March 13, 1984 In answer to the question raised by Mr. Fisher, at this point I do not anticipate an excess of revenue over expenditures in the current operating budget. In my memo to the School Board dated March 6, 1984, I state that total revenues will decrease by $12,742.00. At that time I provided the Board with a plan for revising expenditures in line with projected revenues. In answer to Mr. Bowie's question, I cannot at this point in time specify which buses will be retired. That decision will be made based upon need as the new buses are received. As to why the buses are to be replaced, I must answer that buses have a limited life and must be replaced periodically. The School Board's current policy suggests that buses be replaced after ten years of service. This would mean that one tenth of the fleet should be replaced annually. Considering our current fleet requirements that would equate to thirteen buses. The six buses in next year's budget is a compromise from the total of thirteen considering other budget priorities. I can assure you that a more rigorous replacement schedule will be suggested for the next year. The School Board has already voiced their intention to give bus replacement a high priority in the development of the 1985-86 operating budget." Mr. Fisher asked if it is expected that revenues will be below estimates. Mr. Papenfuse said no; it is hoped that revenue estimates compared to actual collections will be similar, or on the positive side. Mr. Fisher asked how long it takes for each monthly ~forecast of revenues and expenditures, after the close of the books each month. Mr. Papenfuse said it takes three or four days for a detailed analysis; to do a quarterly comparison takes eighty or more hours using a computer. Mr. Fisher asked the time lag between the end of the month and the time that a financial forecast is made. Mr. Papenfuse said it is about the second Wednesday in each month before the report comes from the Accounting Department. It takes a couple of days after that time to complete same. Mr. Papenfuse said he does detailed analysis of revenues each month, and unless he hears different from the cost center directors, he assumes that they are doing the same for the expenditures. He does a quarterly review to verify assumptio.ns he has made. Mr. Fisher asked if there is any cost associated with the pairing of Murray Elementary and Meriwether Lewis Elementary schools. Mr. Papenfuse said there is no cost associated with the facilities, the staff, textbooks or resources; the only financial requirement is the potential for three additional bus runs. Mr. Fisher asked if that is three buses that are not used this current year. Mr. Papenfuse said not necessarily. There are, at this time, about twenty buses held in reserve which are not used for daily runs. Three of these buses will be used. Mr. Agnor then referred to figures in the following memorandum fr~om Mr. Papenfuse dated March 19, 1984: ~ "TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Guy Agnor, County Executive David C. Papenfuse, Assistant ~uperintendent, Finance and Administration FY 84-85 Education Budget Since the adoption of the Education Budget by the School Board two items have come to light that could effect the local share funding requirement. The first item involves the increase in the social security employer rate effective January 1, 1985. The factor that I used was 7.5% when I should hay used 7.05%. This has the effect of reducing expenses by $39,139 and decreasing revenue through recovered costs by $21,771. The second item relates to the adoption of HB 30 and the State Superintendent's estimates of revenue received by my office today. Changes in HB 30 will result in a $40,799 reduction in remedial education aid, the elimination of $20,000 earmarked for community education and the addition of $26,857 in projected foster home payments. The net result of these changes would require an increase in the local share of $16,574 if the expenditure budget remains intact." O44 ~areh ~!~ !98a (Afternoon Meet~ng--~ajot~e~ from ~ !~ 1984) Mr. Agnor said that if the expenditure side of the school budget remains intact, an additional $16,574 will be needed from local funds. The School Board does not meet until early April to discuss these changes. Mr. Agnor said he sees no way to handle this situation, other than advertising the budget showing an increase in the local share until the School Board decides how these changes in revenues will effect their programs. Mr. Fisher asked if it is likely that other changes of this nature will occur between now and time for the public hearing. Mr. Agnor said no; the only changes of this nature will occur after the County is notified of State participation in salaries paid by the State Compensation Board and State participation in the County Welfare budget. Mr. Fisher said he feels that the proposed salaries of administrators is too high. He also feels the School Board can find $16,574 in a $29 million budget to cover the change in revenues. Mr. Agnor said the Board has the option of reducing total expenditures, and letting the Schogl Board decide where to make cuts at a later date. Mr. Lindstrom said he agrees that the merit pool shown for administrators is too high. He also agreed that if seventy-five percent of general government employees receive a merit increase, the term "merit" needs to be redefined. Mrs. Jessie Haden, Chairman of the School Board, thanked Mr. Way for his positive comments. Mrs. Haden said the School Board had confidence in its staff when they said there were inequities in administrative salaries. The Board of Supervisors has worked with the School Board to help bring teacher salaries up to a point to be competitive with Charlottesville. Mrs. Haden said she translates the Board's comments today to mean that it is not felt that this is the time to do likewise for administrators. Mrs. Haden said she disagrees with those statements. Mr. Lindstrom sa~id he supports the School budget with the exception of the comment he just made. He would like to have had this increase given to teachers last year, but there was a lot of fuss about not raising the tax rate. Based on current revenue estimates for 1984-85, the Board could save taxpayers about six and one-half cents if the status quo were maintained and could cut the tax rate by about fifteen cents if compensation were cut back to the current level. Mr. Lindstrom said he is not suggesting that this be done, and is glad to see the increase in revenues without having to raise taxes. Mr. Henley said he proposed last year that the teachers get only the five percent increase that all other employees were receiving because the economy was terrible and everybody was suffering. He does support the proposed salary increase for teachers for this coming year. Mr. Way said he would like to have a joint meeting with the School Board to discuss things other than the budget, since he has some things he would like to mention to the School Board members. Mr. Lindstrom agreed with this idea. Mrs. Haden said she felt this would be a positive thing to do. Mr. Fisher suggested 4:00 P.M. on the afternoon of Apri% 18 for such a meeting. Mrs. Cooke said she had no negative comments to make, in fact she is very pleased with the treatment of the teachers and supports the budget. Mr. Fisher asked if there was any motion to ~amend the School Board's budget as presented this date. Mr. Way offered motion to go to public hearing with a total School budget of $29,178,660, the total requested by the School Board. Mr. Bowie asked if Mr. Way was recommending the administrative pay increase which is part of this budget document. Mr. Fisher said the motion is to go to public hearing with the bottom line as recommended by the School Board. Mr. Henley offered second to the motion. Mr. Lindstrom said he will support the motion for hearing, but he does feel that the merit increase included for administrators needs to be revised. He will support the bottom line total until April 4 at the hearing, and until the School Board has time to act on the $16,000+ decrease in revenues. Mr. Agnor said the School Board has the option of decreasing the bottom line total after public hearing. Mr. Bowie said because there is the provision to look at administrative salaries, and because he wants a good relationship with the School Board, he will support the motion. Roll was called at this time 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. 2b. Discussion of School Master Plan. Mrs. Haden asked Dr. Charles To!bert to present this matter. Dr. Tolbert referred to a letter from Col. William R. Washington suggesting that there be a comprehensive plan for schools. He said it is a good suggestion and this is probably the right time to begin such a study. The School Board has discussed the idea of recommending in the Capital Improvements Program revision this year that a consultant be employed to prepare such a plan. Dr. Tolbert said he understands such a document would then become a part of the overall County Comprehensive Plan and would thereafter be updated by the Planning staff each five years. The question arises as to who should hire and direct this consultant - should the School Board hire the consultant and take advice from the Planning Department or vice versa; should there be a steering committee composed of Planning Commission members, School Board members, Board of Supervisors, to hire a consultant. This question has not been resolved at this time. Mr. Fisher suggested that some detailed written inStructions might be a good place to start. He said it is important to tell a consultant what you need that person to tell you. Mr. Bowie asked if there is any cost estimate for such a study. March 21, 1984 (Afternoon Meeting--Adjourned from March 14, 1984 Dr. Tolbert said a planning figure of $35,000 is being used, and this is based on a 1973 comprehensive school plan drafted for Roanoke which cast $3,500; a factor of ten was &pplied to that cost. Mr. Bowie said when the recommendation comes back to this Board, he does not want the Board's choices to be only a study costing $35,000, or no study at all. There must be other alternatives which can be explored. Dr. Tolbert said the amount of in-house work that can be done would make a big difference in the cost, although, this might mean that the Planning Department would need to add to its staff. Mr. Bowie said any report from a consultant is going to require several months of study by the Board before any decision could be made, and he would like to know if there is not some better way to get the information desired. Mr. Fisher said he is in favor of trying to address the needs of the schools, but is not in favor of giving a consultant carte blanche' to recommend closing schools, building new schools, etc. Dr. Tolbert agreed and said the Board would need to have tigh~ control on the study. There being no further discussion of this proposal, the Board recessed at 2:40 P.M. and reconvened at 2:57 P.M. for a continuance of the work session on the budget. Agenda Item No. 2c. Jail. Mr. Mike McMahan, Jail Administrator, was present. Mr. Agnor said that Albemarle County's share of this budget is $72,930, an increase of 9.18 percent. A five percent salary adjustment is included, plus the salary of three additional correctional officers making a total staff of forty-five. Albemarle's share represents only 5.92 percent of the total Jail budget. A large percentage of the costs are paid by the State Department of Corrections and State Compensation Board. Localities using the facility, other than the two owners, reimburse costs on a per diem basis. Charlottesville and Albemarle assume the costs that are not reimbursed by other units of government based on their portions of the use of the Jail facility. There was no motion made to change the staff's recommendation. Agenda Item No. 2d. Vir$inia Public Assistance~ Public Assistance Payments~ Food Stamps; Fuel Assistance. Ms. Karen Morris, Director, was present. Mr. Agnor said that for the first category which is administration of the program, salary and fringe benefits account for an increase of 1.86 percent. The operating expenses increase by 6.16 percent. Mr. Agnor noted at this point that an Equipment Replacement Fund for cars in the motor pool has been developed which allows a depreciation allowance to be charged in with the mileage expense. This will allow accumulation of a fund to replace the motor pool itself. This budget shows a figure of $20,000 to be used for replacement of three cars which are intended to be used in the motor pool. This budget is heavily funded by State and Federal sources and the operation of same is overseen by the Welfare Board. Ms. Morris has expressed some concern about buying three vehicles at one time and charging those cars to her budget feeling that the State and Federal sources might not find the answer satisfactory. Therefore, it is expected that in the final 'quarter of the 1983-84 fiscal year, the staff will request the Board to transfer funds from Social Services to Staff Services and replace those three pool cars. Mr. Agnor said that citizens often express concern that the administrative costs of this department are quite heavy compared to program costs. There are five programs which are administered by this department for the State, and for which no costs, other than administrative costs, are shown in this budget. The program part of this budget appears to be dropping by twenty-six percent, when actually the State is expanding computer capabilitie in Richmond, and making more payments directly from Richmond. The case load of the Department has not changed much this year. Mr. Agnor said the staff recommends that this budget be funded in the amount requested. Mr. Bowie said the information presented with this budget request was more helpful than that presented for other departments. It shows expenditures at a certain amount, and revenues at a certain amount. It would~e~ if the Inspections budget had shown the amount of revenues generated by its fees. This type of information .would give a better [perspective for the Board members. Mr. Agnor said Ms. Morris runs a "tight ship" in terms of costs of operations. Mr. Bowie said that however it happened, this budget shows an 8.8 percent reduction for next year and if everybody would do the same, the County would be in much better shape. He thanked Ms. Morris for her efforts. Agenda Item No. 2e. Southside Health Center. Mr. Agnor said this is the first time that a budget request for this agency has been before the Board. The Center was incorporated in May, 1980 as a health care agency primarily for residents of southern Albemarle County. First priority of the Center is in general family medicine, hypertension screening and treatment, diet counseling and minor emergency services. A second priority includes health education, hearing and vision screening, veneral disease treatment and special attention to elderly persons. With the assistance of the Northwestern Virginia Health Systems Agency, the Center applied for a Rural Health Initiative Federal grant. However, before the request for the grant could be acted on, all funding for new projects until this title was stopped. Mr. Agnor said the Board of Supervisors acquired a building a few years ago, using grant funds, for this Center and leases the building to the Center for $10.00 a year. The Center relies totally on volunteers at this time; volunteers consist of two physicians, one physicians' assistant, one office manager, and one janitor. The Center has been approved for reimbursement and assigned a provider number by Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Virginia, Medicare, and Medicaid. The Center has also developed a fee schedule for users based on incomes when the patient does not have a third party reimburser. 048 March 21, 1984 (Afternoon Meeting--Adjourned from March 14, !984) Mr. Agnor said that during the past year, the Southside Health Center has served 160 people; ninety percent of these were low income persons. The target population for the Center is 9,398; of these, 22.1 percent are below 125 percent of the poverty level, and 27.5 percent are below 150 percent of the poverty level. While transportation into Charlottesw is relatively easy for persons at the extreme northern end of the Scottsville District, it is very difficult for many of the people in the area. Not only is private transportation very limited, but there is no local public transportation at all. Mr. Agnor said the Southside Health Center has never received Federal, State or local funds. If funds are granted by the Board, these funds would be used to hire and provide benefits for one physician to practice no less than twenty hours weekly for one year, purchase office equipment and supplies, pay a janitor and nurse, and allocate some funds for contractural services. The Center has received approval of a $6,000 contribution from a private foundation to fund an office manager's position. However, the grant is contingent upon the hiring of a nurse practioner or physician. Mr. Agnor said the requested amount is $50,000, but the staff committee recommends only $15,000 for the following reasons: 1) The budget information presented by the Center is incomplete and does not accurately reflect the Center's financial situation. The in-kind support (building donation) is not included in the financial data and "other funding" is marked as being unknown. 2) Although the service area for the Center is all of southern Albemarle County, it is stated that fifteen percent of the users come from the surrounding areas of Nelson and Fluvanna counties. 3) It is stated that the Center will be self-sufficient at the end of its fourth year of operation. It is stated that this can be done by having fund-raising events, more aggressive collection of fees and increased clinic hours, along with soliciting more private foundations and utilizing third party reimbursement. (The fee collection ratio between April 1982 and November 1983 was only twenty-five percent.) Given the degree of support being provided by Albemarle County, and the competition for limited funds by other agencies, the staff committee expressed concern about providing further monetary support of the Center~ Mr. Agnor then referred the Board to pages 60 - 65 of the Program Review Report for further information on this request. Present in support 'of this request was Ms. Perri Rush. She said that this is a one- time request. The salary range for a physician for twenty hours a week is estimated to be $20,000. The private donation is contingent upon the County providing funding to the Center, not matching funds. Mr. Lindstrom said he did not understand how this could be a one-time request. Ms. Rush said it is hoped that a physician can be attracted to the Center for a private practice with this "seed" money. At the moment, the Center is open only one day a week and between seven and fifteen patients are seen. Mrs. Cooke asked if Nelson or Fluvanna Counties have been asked to contribute any funds toward operation of this center. Ms. Rush said no. Mrs. Cooke suggested that this might be a good idea. Mrs. Mary Banks said most patients have come from the Schuyler area which lies partly~ in Albemarle and partly in Nelson County. Also, patients from Scottsville can be from one of three different counties. The Center cannot turn these people away. Mr. Fisher said that if a fee system is used for those who can afford to pay, it will at least begin to take care of some of the costs. Mrs. Cooke said use of various agencies by people living in surrounding counties is becoming an increasing concern of the Board. Furnishing these services is a responsibility of the county in which that person resides, no matter how small that cost may be. It is not a concern of the taxpayers of Albemarle County. Mr. Way said since this Health Center is in the Scottsville District, he would like to make a plea for funding of the request. A need for these services has been clearly established. Mr Way said he realizes that when the County gave the building to be used for $10.00 a year, that was a considerable amount, but in that same year all monies for these types of programs was discontinued. As a result, the Center has never been able to operate in the manner in which originally anticipated. The funds requested would allow the Center to operate enough hours so people in the area can really use the Center. If at the end of this one year period of time, the Center is not functioning and does not have enough people using it to make it viable, the Center should be closed. By approving thiS funding, the County will have the opportunity to help a group of people who have worked very hard for three years. There have been volunteer physicians at the Center, but as of the first of April, there will be no doctor connected with the Center at all, and for all practical purposes it will have to close at that time. Also, the grant funds to hire an office manager will help to make this a better run organization. In 1985, there is an opportunity to get a doctor through a grant; the application process on that has already begun. Mr. Way said that $15,000 will not help the Center that much, and he would like to see it funded at $40,000. Mr. Lindstrom noted a sentence in the Staff Review Report: "Zf funding were to be used to match or leverage other funds or if the funding were a one-time only request, then the staff committee might have been able to support such an amount." Mr. Lindstrom asked if the statements made today had been presented to the staff committee if the decision of the committee would have been different. Ms. Katherine Imhoff, Planning staff, said she felt it would have been different, although she could not say if it would have been for the full $50,000 requested. lle 047 March 21, 1984 (Afternoon Meeting--Adjourned from March 14, 1984) Miss Ellen Nash was present in support of the request. She said it is very important that these people have some idea of what need can be filled. The Center will take a survey during the year to see how many pople might be served, and they hope that this survey information can be passed on to other funding sources and they will not have to come back to the Board. Mrs. Rosa Hudson said the other counties mentioned are within five miles of the Center. These people are served because in a proposal submitted to the Federal government, they would have been part of the service area for a federally funded program. Mr. Fisher asked Dr. Richard Prindle, Director of the Health District, if it would be possible to use this facility on some sort of shared basis. Dr. Prindle said that for three years, the Health District has placed a trailer in this part of the County during the summer months for dental services. A WIC program (women and children) is also held which provides feeding and financial assistance for certain eligible groups. This facility might be used as a kind of outpost which did not require any fancy equipment or highly specialized personnel. In terms of actual health services, or a physician, that could cost much more than the Health District is actually spending in this area. On the other hand, Dr. Prindle said the facilities located in Charlottesville are so crowded that it might provide some relief. It is an idea that might be considered. Mr. Fisher said Dr. Prindle's statements sound somewhat hopeful. Mr. Lindstrom said he would be willing to support an increased amount based on Ms. Imhoff's statements. He said it is too bad that all efforts have gone to naught simply because a grant application was made in the wrong year for Federal funding. Mr. Bowie said that in light of the fact that several times in the Staff Committee Report it is mentioned that a satellite is needed in the southern part of the County, and this is a chance to help local people help solve local problems, he can support the request. Mr. Way then offered motion to amend the recommendation and change the proposed expenditure from $15,000 to $40,000 for the Southside Health Center. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom. Mrs. Cooke said she is willing to support this as a one-time request. However, if this becomes a more extended service, it certainly will attract people from other localities, and she feels it would be in the best interest of the Center to inquire of the other localities for assistance. Mr. Fisher asked if this funding will be used to sign a contract with a physician to provide essentially full-time service at this Center for a year. Ms. Rush said that is the intent. Mr. Fisher asked what will happen at the end of six months if the people do not use the facility. Ms. Rush said she does not believe that will happen, but it is a risk the Center will have to take. Mr. Fisher said he just wants to be sure he understands what the gamble really is. Ms. Rush said the primary focus is to get a physician in the area. Mr. Fisher asked if it is hoped that some other agency will come in by July, 1985 to take over this obligation. Mr. Fisher said strong statements have been made that the Center will not request funds from the County next year. Ms. Rush said she would like to repeat that the people operating the Center do not plan on coming before the Board and requesting funds for this operation next year. Ms. Rush said the people at the Center would welcome any help from the County in administering this money. These people are volunteers and she feels will need some help in administering the program. Roll was called on the motion at this time, 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. 2f. Thomas Jefferson Health Department. Dr. Richard Prindle, Director, was present. Mr. Agnor said the requested level of funding is $337,785, or approximately a five percent increase. This is a very complex budget in that Dr. Prindle actually operates five separate offices with five separate budgets. A topic of discussion in the past has been the formula by which the local shares are calculated. At this time, the State requires that the State provide 55 percent of the total budget, and the localities provide 45 percent. Charlottesville and Albemarle have been splitting the 45 percent local share into: Charlottesville, 45 percent, and Albemarle, 55 percent. The State had looked at a funding formula of 70 percent State and 30 percent local, but that idea was not approved. The Health Department has suggested that the local split be based on total population of the two localities. Under this method, the split would be 41 percent Charlottesville, and 59 percent Albemarle, and if this method were approved, a plan would be developed t0 gradually equalize the shares over a period of several years, instead of abruptly changing in just one year. Mr. Agnor said this formula cannot be calculated on expenditures because the State has not developed a satisfactory measurement of unit costS. This budget is calculated on the same shares as used in previous years, and is also based solely on estimates of increased costs without having any guidelines from the State at this time. Mr. Agnor said it was thought that the State intended to initiate a fee for inspection of septic tanks, but now that the State has decided not to do this, he recommends initiating a septic tank permit fee as part of the building permit fee. Mr. Agnor said the staff recommends that the formula for calculating the local share be addressed in the near future, that the application fee be initiated as part of the building permit process, and that the Health Department work closely with the Southside Health Center. The~request is for a five percent increase, and the staff recommends this percentage increase knowing that after the Health Department's budget is approved in May, the staff may have to review this budget again. \© March 21, 1984 (Afternomn Meeting--Adjourned from March 14, 1984) Mr. Bowie said he felt that the recommendations of the staff committee were excellent - as follows (condensed): That the Board of Supervisors consider contacting the State Health Department to discuss this locality's concern with the present state/local standard funding formula. The Staff Committee, before supporting a local share formula based solely on total population, would like to explore with the City and the Health Department developing a formula which would also be a factor in number of services delivered to County versus City residents with some factor as well for value of services delivered. The staff committee requests that the Board of Supervisors consider charging septic tank permit fees as part of the building permit process and that funds collected from those fees be earmarked as revenue to support the Health Department. The staff committee feels that the program review of the Health Department has been important both for promoting better understanding of agencies and for reviewing services delivered versus local funding support provided. Given the Health Department's support of satellite programs, the staff committee strongly recommends that the Health Department work closely with the Southside Health Center over the next year in order to provide some Health Department services at this location. Mr. Bowie said he had made a note for himself that if the County needs to approach the State, this should be done now instead of waiting until next year and having the same problem. Mr. Bowie said his initial reaction was not to vote to fund any increase and ask the staff to get going on the increase in cost~ but that may not be practical. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the suggestion to charge for the septic tank permit through the building permit process is legal. Mr. Agnor said yes. The original recommendation was that the Health Department collect this fee, but that complicates recordkeeping the Health Department has to maintain for the State. Dr. Prindle said that his total budget for the entire district shows a 7.1 percent increase but that has been applied to all localities, and distributed on the basis of services rendered in the localities. As services have increased, so have costs to these localities. Mr. Fisher asked if there was any motion to change the recommendation for a five percent increase? There was no motion. Mr. Fisher then asked for a motion to adopt the recommendations in the staff report, and to encourage the committee under Item No. 1 to prepare something for this Board to consider forwarding to the State Health Department, as well as working on formulas for funding between the City/County, and to consider charging a septic tank permit fee. Motion to this effect was offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Bowie, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Agenda Item No. 2g. Extension Service. Ms. Elizabeth Payne, Unit Coordinator, was present. Mr. Agnor said that the Extension Service provides education services in the form of agricultural, natural resources, home economics, 4-H programs, and some community resource development. Principally it is for agricultural and home economics, and in the youth programs it deals with 4-H'ers ages 9 - 19, and the adult programs are basically to teach how to manage resources to improve farm profits and how to make better use of skills and money. The Extension Services uses a lot of volunteers in workshops and classes. The formula used to calculate the costs for this program is taken from the Code of Virginia, and is also in the agreement executed last May between VPI-SU and Albemarle County. Actually, the City and County combined their Extension Services offices a few years ago, and run this as a combined agency. This agreement provides that the County fund one-third of the salaries .and fringe benefits of five agents; fund the full salary and fringe costs of one secretary; house the agency; and provide local telephone service. The County also contributes $1,000 toward office expenses. The City of Charlottesville funds the salary and fringe costs of two staff members in this office, and participates in the cost of space. The remaining costs are paid by the State. Mr. Agnor noted that line item 100105 entitled "Compensation of Extension Agents" should be changed from $44,490 to $45,040. This figure came to the staff from the State after the budget had been compiled. Mr. Agnor noted that telephone expenses are expected to increase by five percent, and office supplies are reduced by $500. The total costs for the office increase 2.9 percent. Ms. Payne said she would like to thank the Board for the new facilities of the Extension Service. The public keeps these facilities busy taking classes, workshops, and with committee meetings. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to make the changes outlined by the County Executive. The motion was seconded by Mr. Way and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. March 21, 1984 (Afternoon Meeting--Adjourned from march 14, 1984) Agenda Item No. 2h. Circuit Court Clerk. Mrs. Shelby J. Marshall, Clerk, was present. Mr. Agnor said this budget contains a request for one additional employee. This expense has been approved for funding by the State Compensation Board for the nex~ year. Salary and fringe costs increase 13.54 percent; without the new employee the increase would be 5.7 percent. As far as operating expenses are concerned, there is $5,500 included for a mini-computer for indexing. Also shown is an increase of $3,000 for binding of records which is an item that comes up every three years for restoring of old record books. There is shown an increase in telephone expenses, and this occurs because of underfunding of this category in the present year. Mrs. Marshall said she intends to request the Compensation Board to help fund the mini-computer. Actually the computer has been in her office since August, 1983, and she thinks the Compensation Board will participate in 80 percent of the costs. There was no recommendation for a change. Agenda Item No. 2i. Community Attention Home. Mr. Paul McWhinney, Director, was present. Mr. Agnor said the request for next year is $14,526, which will actually be a decreased amount over what was authorized at a recent Board meeting for this agency. The majority of funds for this agency come from the State Department of Corrections and Social Services. The details of the request show in the Program Review Report. The actual cost of residential care charged to localities using the facilities, as compared to the actual cost of operating the facilities, is significantly different. The County pays $826/month for use of the Boys' Home, while the actual cost to the Community Attention Program is $2,290/month. The difference between these two figures is the amount provided by the State and Federal governments. The amount requested of the County is based on actual experience of use. The City of Charlottesville has a contract with the State Department of Corrections to operate this pro~ram and the City contributes six percent of its total revenues. That gives the City first priority when placing youth in this program; Albemarle County gets second priority. The staff committee, for two years, has recommended that the County examine the contractural agreement with the City, with the idea of the County developing a buy-in agreement and set a negotiated amount for this buy-in and receive a guarantee of space for a certain number of youth each year. The Committee also recommends that Community Attention take the initiative next year to examine such an agreement and present it to the County for consideration. If no contract is forthcoming, the Committee recommends that Community Attention not request an additional allocation in mid-year, but rather assess their demands and services and make a lump sum request once each year. The staff has recommended funding at the requested amount. Mr. McWhinney noted that many members of his Advisory Board were present at this meeting in support of the request. Mr. McWhinney said the increased amount of $14,526 is not necessarily an increase in expenditures, but is the allocation ceiling for Albemarle County youth in this program. Since he was heard by the Board on February 8 requesting additional funds for the current year, six referrals from Albemarle County schools, courts and parents have not been accepted for lack of funds. Mr. McWhinney said he personally would support a buyin of services for Albemarle County, and if the Board agrees he will begin this process by having discussions with the City Manager and County Executive. He thanked the Board members for their support of this program in the past. Mr. Henley asked if the Board setting a limit on the number of children who could be entered in the program affects federal funding. Mr. McWhinney said it affects the State utilization rate, so if no Albemarle County children were admitted to the program, Community Attention would look elsewhere for youth to increase the utilization rate in order to keep the rate stable. This would not affect the base amount award. Mr. Way said he has met with Mr. McWhinney. He feels strongly that the cost of child care has gotten completely out of hand, but he believes that this is occasioned by the regulations and guidelines imposed on the Home. Mr. Way said it appears that the Board will have to deal with this problem on the State level. Mr. Way said he does not find the State regulations at all reasonable, but that should not reflect on this request for funds which he supports. Mrs. Cooke asked if there is any particular percentage of costs attributed to State mandated requirements. Mr. McWhinney said that is a difficult question to answer. The State puts up the base amount and expects the locality to come into compliance with all standards, and if the agency does not do that, it is in danger of losing its license. The State and the Department of Corrections feel they are doing their part. Mr. Fisher asked if there was any motion to change the recommendation of the County Executive. There was none offered. Agenda Item No. 2j. Community Services (Re$ion X Mental Health). Mr. James Peterson, Executive Director, and Mr. Gene Krumnacher, Chairman of the Board of Directors, were present. Mr. Agnor said the local funding for Region × is requested at $100,133, an increase of 10.45 percent. In the 1984-85 budget there is a decrease of Federal grants projected, and an increase in State and local support projected. The Staff Review Committee mentions two recommendations from last year, specifically, that Region X has included more detail of programs and the number of people served, as well as made great strides in the utilization of volunteers; and 2) the statistical information provided was also more reliable-primarily due to improved and partially computerized recordkeeping. Mr. Agnor said the committee continued to be concerned about the distribution of funding from the six participating jurisdictions. There was a formula approved by the six governing bodies several years ago, and the staff recommends that Region X adhere to the locally approved formula in its requests in future years, and if a locality does not fund the services offered to its residents, then services to that jurisdiction should be reduced or eliminated. The Staff Committee did recommend full funding of the request this year. 050 Mr. Krumnacher said he had hoped to be able to present the Annual Report of the Community Services Board at this time, but since the hour was so late, he would come back at a more appropriate time. Mr. Krumnacher said he would speak only about the proposed budget this date. He showed slides to represent sources of funding for this agency: $100,000 - Albemarle; $111,000 - Charlottesville; $10,000 - Fluvanna; $14,000 - Greene; $26,000 - Louisa; $17,000 - Nelson; $2,116,000 - State; $198,712 - Federal; $825,000 - Other; and $84,000 - Private. Included in this budget are $370,000 in grants which the staff has worked to get to help complement funding of the Board. The total increase in operating funds is 6.78 percent. This includes a modest three percent cost-of-living increase for employee salaries, plus funds for a merit increase - averaging three percent - and the remainder is for fringe expenses. Mr. Krumnacher reminded the Board that there are two vacancies on the Region X Board at this time for Albemarle County, and he hoped that these vacancies will be filled soon. Mr. Fisher asked where the fees collected for services show in the revenues. Mr. Krumnacher said it is in the "other" category. Mr. Fisher asked Ms, Katherine Imhoff, Planning staff, if the Committee had looked at fees. Ms. Imhoff said the Committee did not specifically look at fees because so many different fee schedules are used. .However, most of the projected $825,000 in "other" will come from fees. Mr. Peterson said that $658,000 was collected in fees from twenty-five separate programs. Mr. Fisher asked if that is not a much higher percentage of the total budget than two or three years ago. Mr. Peterson said the amount collected has increased every year, and probably the top amount to be collected has been reached; no significant increase in this category is likely to occur. Mr. Bowie said he had spent a great deal of time going over this budget, and he has found that not all pertinent information was contained with the budget request from this agency. Mr Bowie said that no matter how you look at it, no justifiable increase comes to $100,000. If the County only fun~ed the same percentage of this budget as it did last year that would be only $94,800, and if the County allowed everything that they have requested, and only increased Albemarle's percentage to cover Albemarle's fair share of the costs, it would amount to only $96,800. Mr. Bowie said he thinks Albemarle County should pay only its fair share and no more of the cost of these programs. He then offered motion to go to public hearing with the figure that would hold the increased request to the County's fair share; the County's fair share being 2.75 percent is $94,281. Mr. Bowie said this is accepting the $3,517,000+, and holding the County's percentage of the total budget to the same percentage used for the 1983-84 budget. Mr. Fisher asked for a second to the motion. Mr. Henley said the Board did not have time to get into this matter deep enough for him to go along with the motion at this time, but he would go along with putting the requested amount in the budget for the public hearing, and the amount could be adjusted to a lower figure before adoption of the budget. Mr. Henley said he might vote for this change in the end, but right now would like to have more information than the Board can get this afternoon. Mr. Bowie said he would withdraw his motion, and explain his thoughts to anybody who wants to hear same between now and the public hearing date. Mr. Henley said the Region X Board might like to explain its side of this question at the public hearing. Mr. Lindstrom said he thought Mr. Agnor said the County was paying its fair share or a little bit more than had been allocated to it. Mr. Agnor said that statement is based on a formula for distribution of costs which this Board approved several years ago, but which is not being utilized. Mr. Lindstrom said he really did not understand the problem. Mr. Bowie said assuming that all localities also follow the same formula; Albemarle's fair share and what it has been paying is 2.75 percent. Mr. Lindstrom said he did not know if he could vote for that or not. Mr. Henley said he knows that in years past, Community Services has contributed services to jail inmates at almost no cost. He feels this agency should get credit for this type of service. Mr. Fisher said unless a positive motion is made, the Board will go to public hearing 'with the figure recommended by the staff. Mrs. Cooke said she would like to have some time to talk to Mr. Bowie about what he has found. Mr. Henley agreed. There was no recommendation for a change. Agenda Item No. 2k. Emersency Medical Services Council. Dr. Thomas Kuhlman, Director of Emergency Room Services at the University' of Virginia Hospital, was present. Mr. Agnor said the requested amount is $11,136 and his recommendation is for $6,400. Mr. Agnor said the TJEMS Council coordinates and assists in promoting and training of life saving techniques. The coordinated services are also given to EMS agencies operating in Buckingham, Culpeper, Madison and Orange Counties. The Councils' activities have focused on basic and advanced life support. The council assists in coordinating shock trauma and cardiac technician training done by pre-hospital nurses for area volunteer EMS agencies. Their responsibilities also include the coordination of rescue squads into the University of Virginia Hospital system, providing hospital-to-hospital and hospital-to-ambulance radio communications and centralized recordkeeping and aiding in resource allocation among rescue squads. " The TJEMS Council states that their most positive contributions to Albemarle County have been: steadfast support of 911 imPlementation; support the training of rescue squad members in advanced levels of care; have promoted and obtained a standard of patient care for all jurisdictions in Planning District 10, plus Madison, Orange and Buckingham counties; have instituted a modern radio-telecommunications system that links regional hospitals with the rescue squads; and have obtained $1.5 million of federal and private funds to initiate a regional system of emergency medical care and from that point have set the standard for emergency medical services for the Commonwealth. __March 21, 1984 (Afternoon Meeting--Adjourned from Mar~h 14~ 1984) Mr. Agnor said the Staff Committee had difficulty with this request because of a doubt as to the usefulness of this Council to the county rescue squads. This Council ranked low in the review process for the following reasons (Abbreviated): 1 - The major increase in the 1984-85 request is noted as being needed in order to increase the number of rescue squad members being trained and to replace some old equipment. Only 35 new Albemarle County rescue squad members are to be trained, and although other members will be updated on skills relating to cardiac and shock trauma training, the committee did not feel the number reflects the need for the amount of increase the Council is requesting. The committee questioned why TJEMS cannot use existing equipment in the community rather than buying its own equipment. 2 - TJEMS coordinates training and often uses its own office space for a classroom for the training provided by the pre-hospital nurses from University of Virginia Hospital. Since counties outside of Planning District 10 are included in these training sessions, the staff committee believes these localities should share in the cost. 3 - TJEMS has not made an effort to apply to other sources for funding. 4 - The local share formula for TJEMS was prorated on total census within the individual jurisdictions. The staff recommends that a formula based on usage of services be used rather than a formula based on population. 5 - The only volunteers TJEMS uses are 28 Board members representing various jurisdictions and community organizations. The st~ff committee strongly recommends that TJEMS recruit volunteers for this purpose, thereby training people in a shorter period of time. 6 - Albemarle County also supports emergency medical services through its contributions to the three area rescue squads. 7 - The staff committee recognizes that the original intent of the federal government was to establish a regional emergency medical care system through developing communication systems between localities and regions. TJEMS has done this, and is now maintaining this system. Staff recommends that TJEMS reexamine its goals and objectives. Mr. Agnor said for all of the reasons stated above, the Staff Committee recommended that this agency receive no funding for 1984-85. He misunderstood the recommendation, and added the figure included in last year's budget for payment of lease of County space, but he now finds that the Staff meant no funding including the amount for lease of space. Mr. Agnor said the County can give the occupants a three month notice of termination of the lease if the Board decides to follow the recommendation. Mr. Fisher said Mr. Agnor and the staff sure were being hard on an organization which he had helped to found. Mr. Agnor said he realizes this, but he and the staff feel this Council ha~s completed the function for which it was organized. Mr. Bowie said he had marked his copy of the budget that this seems to be another federal program which has served its purpose. Mr. Fisher said this was not a federal program, on the contrary, the funds used to bring this organization into existence were all private funds. There was a major grant made to provide radios and training for all rescue squads in Planning District 10. One of the stipulations of the private grant was that there would be an umbrella agency to coordinate the training and assign the radio frequency, etc. Mr. Fisher said if the money were distributed to the many rescue squads in the five counties and the City, and all of them were asked to provide their own training, he did not think any of them would have enough volunteers at any one time to hold a class. He feels it is better to do this on a regional basis. Ms. Brenda Barbour, Executive Director, said she had replaced Ms. Andrea Clapp as Director of the EMS Council since last year. She then introduced Dr. Thomas Kuhlman, President of the Board of Directors. Dr. Kuhlman said he has strong disagreements with the Staff Review Report. There are a number of misconceptions in the report. There is a statement that the Council serves only for communication purposes and that is false. One of the original goals of the Council was to set up a sophisticated communication system, and this has been done, although that equipment is now outdated and is in the process of being replaced, but there were fifteen different functions. Dr. Kuhlman said training is a high goal; also communications, transportation, public information, education, use of facilities for training, and others. Dr. Kuhlman said the number of new members trained is incorrectly shown. Already this year, eighteen new members have been trained, and probably there will be thirty-five people who go from a "no training" state to a "full training" state by the end of the year. Also, there are about forty-four other people who are on a continual retraining cycle. This is not just CPR training which you can get from the Red Cross, but advanced life support training. Dr. Kuhlman said the EMS Council shares equipment with people all the time, but there are certain types of equipment which are not available, and some of the equipment that is available is so outdated that it is used only for practice. Rescue Squad equipment is on-line all the time, so cannot be used for training. As to funding from other counties, other counties do not put a lot of money into the Council and Albemarle's money has mainly gone for facilities used as office space. Some of the other counties do put in money used for operations. Applications have been made for funding, for example, a grant for $500 was received in the past few months to obtain safety seats for children because of the State law recently enacted on this issue. Dr. Kuhlman said the Council would be glad to investigate any other sources of grant funds that may be suggested. The Council has one staff person, Ms. Barbour, and to spend a lot of time searching for grant funds would require another staff person. Dr. 052 March 21, 1984 (Afternoon Meeting--Adjourned from March 14, 1984) Kuhlman said this is a service organization and costs for same are relatively low for what is offered. Dr. Kuhlman took exception to the statement that the usefulness of the EMS Council is spent. If the costs of the EMS Council were based on usage of the Council, Albemarle County would be paying thirty-nine percent of the costs. Dr. Kuhlman said that volunteers are used to teach; there are at least seven or eight all the time. The premise expressed in the staff report that any physician or nurse can teach is false. These people cannot come out of whatever their practive situation is and be expected to train lay individuals in life saving skills and procedures. To train lay people who give of their time, lives and money to become volunteers, needs someone who has a total commitment to this type of program. Nurses and physicians could be used for training lectures in their particular area of expertise, but they would not have a commitment to the system, and that is needed. To train a cardiac technician takes 620 hours, and almost two-thirds of that training is on a one-to-one basis with a certified trainer. The County last year gave over $36,000 to the rescue squads for operational costs, but none of those funds pay for training. The EMS Council supplies much of the training for these people. Dr. Kuhlman said if the Council went to pre-hospital care for this community, services would be going backward, and it would effect everyone in the community. Dr. Kuhlman said he feels the Council is extremely important and he feels it deserves the Board's support. Mr. L±ndstrom asked if the training provided to rescue squad members goes beyond certification requirements. Dr. Kuhlman said no; the training is basically to meet requirement~ but there are hundreds of people in training on various levels. Mr. Lindstrom asked if these people would not still need this training if the EMS Council were not functioning. Dr. Kuhlman said yes. Mr. Lindstrom asked where these people would get that training. Dr. Kuhlman said the rescue squads would have to find their own training. He said the Charlottesville/Albemarle Rescue Squad is different from the other squads in that they have more autonomy and have the ability to find trainers although they often use the EMS trainers. The other rescue squads would have great difficulty in maintaining their certificati~ Mr. Lindstrom asked if some of these squads service areas outside of the County. Dr. Kuhlman said some of them do, but all of the rescue squads who are involved with the TJEMS Council are in this service area, and transport patients to the two hospitals here in town. Mr. Fisher asked if the rescue squads who really need training are all located outside of Albemarle County. Dr. Kuhlman said no. Mrs. Cooke asked how many squads are in areas outside of the County. Dr. Kuhlman said there are twelve. Mr. Lindstrom asked if there is any percentage for the number of citizens in Albemarle County who avail themselves of the services of the rescue squads. Dr. Kuhlman said thirty~nine percent of the ~ervice area is in Albemarle County, and he feels that figures will show that about thirty-nine percent of the patients seen at the University of Virginia emergency room are Albemarle County patients. Mr. Fisher said if one of the Board members went hiking on the Appalachian Trail and had an accident, he would certainly want a Greene County Rescue Squad member trained if he needed those services. Dr. Kuhlman said this is a regional system and it works well because everything is coordinated. If each rescue squad had its own protocol in dealing with certain situations and this protocol not coordinated with the hospitals, it would be disasterous for the patient. Mr. Lindstrom said he does not think he supported funding this organization last year. He asked why the training being received by the various rescue squads is somehow on a different level if all squads are required to be certified. Dr. Kuhlman said the level of training is universal, because it is from a federal guideline. However, the way a rescue squads deals with an acute heart attack in the field may be different here than in the Tidewater area. If there were no central group to decide on the best protocol or medication to be used in the field, then any rescue squad could get a physician to train it in emergency medicine, and decide what the best protocol to use. This would just lead to confusion. The certification of skills to maintain a certain level of certification is a national registration. Mr. Lindstrom asked how long the Council has been an active training organization. Dr. Kuhlman said since about 1975. Mr. Fisher said this organization provides the same role for the rescue squads that the Jefferson Country Firefighters' Association does for the volunteer fire companies. The different companies can come together and discuss needs and how to meet those needs. The rescue squads have traditionally been independent and as isolated as the fire companies used to be. Mr. Fisher said he thinks that continuing communication services between the various squads deserves the support of the Board by allowing the use of an empty building without any hard money, if the Board does not support any other part of the request. Mr. Henley said he feels the Board should support the TJEMS in the same amount as that furnished last year. Mr. Henley then offered motion to support the EMS Council in the amount recommende~d by the County Executive. This motion was seconded by Mrs. Cooke. Mr. Lindstrom said if spending $6,800 on this function is justified, the Board should look at whether the EMS people have made a case for the other part of the requested funding. According to the staff report, Mr. Lindstrom does not think they have made a case. He ~' said he cannot support just a portion of this organization if his philosophical feeling is that the organization is not really necessary anymore, and if the organization is not necessary, don't give them any funds. Mr. Henley said he felt Albemarle County will be paying its portion through this contribution, and the other localities will just have to make up the difference. Mr. Lindstrom mentioned the increased amount requested for operating expenses. Mr. Henley said he was not speaking about that, only providing the same office space that is presently being used. Mrs. Cooke asked if expansion is not occasioned by requests from localities other than Albemarle County. Dr. Kuhlman said that is not exactly true. Some of the equipment being used for training is ten or twelve years old, and has reached its life expectancy and some of it is not used in hospitals anymore. The travel request is needed because Ms. Barbour will go out to all the rescue squads to have a more personal contact with the squads. March 21, 1984 (Afternoon Meeting--Adjourned from March 14, 1984) Mr. Henley said he agrees with Mr. Fisher that some of these costs should be funded by the individual squads Mr. Bowie said he goes along with the staff recommendation for no funding. He also does not feel there is use of volunteers, has been no attempt to find other funding sources, and its services are highly duplicative. Mr. Bowie said if he has to vote all or nothing, he will vote nothing. If it is just a matter of using ~he room, that's a separate matter. ~ Mr. Fisher said the motion by Mr. Henley is that the Board leg the EMS Council continue to use the space, and that $6,400 be allocated for this purpose; the $6,400 also being shown as a revenue item, although no money actually changes hands. Mrs. Cooke said that is the motion she thought she seconded. Roll was called at this time, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. Mr. Fisher said the recommendation of the County Executive and not that of the staff is the amount which will be advertised for public hearing. Agenda Item No. 2L. Revenues. Mr. Agnor said the revenues were highlighted in his memo to the Board with the budget and he also verbalized these at the first work session on the budget. Mr. Fisher said he understands that the staff is going to look at the question of fees charged for planning functions as a separate matter, and put the budget together With the revenues shown in the proposed document. Mr. Agnor said that is correct. Mr. Fisher said because 'of the lateness of the hour, he did not believe the Board could finish the remaining items on the agenda, and asked the other Board members if they could meet again tomorrow, March 22, 1984, at 1:00 P.M. to finalize the budget for public hearing. Motin to this effect was offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Items No. 3, 4, 5, and 6 were carried forward. Agenda Item No. 7. At 5:32 P.M., Mr. FiSher said that he had a personnel matter which he would like the Board to discuss between now and the beginning of the night meeting at 7:30 P.M.; also to discuss with the County Attorney legal proceedings in the case of Central Virginia~Electric Cooperative against the County, and the Cason proceedings. Motion to adjourn into executive session for the purposes stated was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. The Board reconvened into open session at 7:29 P.M. and immediately adjourned the meeting which had begun at 1:00 P.M. 054