Loading...
1983-03-02March 2, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on March 2, 1983, at 7:30 P.M. in the Auditorium of the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Present: Mr. James R. Butler, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom, and Miss Ellen V. Nash. Absent: None. Officers Present: Finance. County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr. and Ray B. Jones, Director of Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:40 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Fisher. Mr. Fisher announced that he had received a letter this date from the Consule General in Florence, Italy, in which it is stated that the Mayors of Prato and. Poggio A Caiano have received our letter with great pleasure and approved our proposal concerning the student exchange program. Mr. Fisher said he would like to announce for the public that in line with the Board's request to the County Executive several years ago, Mr. Agnor has put together a balanced budget proposal. If the Board makes any changes in the County Executive's recommendation, it will be up to the Board to find the monies to cover any such changes. Agenda Item No. 2. County Executive's presentation of the proposed 1983-84 County Budget. Mr. Agnor began by presenting his memorandum dated February 25, 1983, as follows: "Submitted herewith for your review is a recommended County budget for FY 83-84, totalling $41,217,620, an increase over FY 82-83 of $2,217,486, or 5.68 percent. It is recommended to you without adjustments in tax rates, and is balanced without the use of carry-over funds. It includes all operational programs except Federally funded school programs that are self-sustaining, which will be added later. The following is a summary of the total budget: General Government Education Debt Service Refunds Capital Improvements City Revenue Sharing TOTAL BUDGETED REQUESTED RECOMMENDED 82-83 83-84 83-84 $ 8,945,649 23,626,200 2,060,067 1,886,897 1,187,769 1,293,552 $39,000,134 $10,028,680 25,571,618 2,037,242 2,199,300 1,000,000 1,530,991 $42,367,831 RECOMMENDED CHANGE OVER 82-83 +$2,217,486 $ 9,590,534 +$ 644,885 25,198,153 + 1,571,953 2,037,242 - 22,825 2,199,300 + 312,403 661,400 - 526,369 1,530,991 + 237,439 $41,217,620 In its present form, it leaves unfunded approximately $1.15 million in requests, $438,146 in general operations, $373,465 in school operations, and $338,600 in Capital Improvement program funds. + 7.21% + 6.65 - 1.11 +16.56 -44.32 +18.36 + 5.68% Expressing that in a different manner, general operations are recommended for 95.6 percent of requests; school operations 98.5 percent of requests, and the Capital Improvement program 66.14 percent of its estimated local fund needs. It is my estimation that essential needs of current programs can be met with this recommended budget. Revenues to fund the recommended expenses are summarized as follows: BUDGETED ESTIMATED 82-83 83-84 DIFFERENCE $ GENERAL FUND: Property Taxes Other Local Revenues State Revenues Federal Revenues Carry-over Balance $16,833,233 $18,932,080 8,240,551 8,228,675 2,715,585 2,705,612 771,574 172,400 73,074 -0- +2,098,847 + 12.47 - 11,876 - 0.14 - 9,973 - 0.37 - 599,174 - 77.66 - 73,074 100.00 Sub-Total - General Fund SCHOOL FUND: State Revenues Federal Revenues Misc Revenues Sub-Total - School Fund $28,634,017 $30,038,767 $ 9,739,237 $10,557,368 379,884 316,185 246,996 305,300 $10,366,117 $11,178,853 +1,404,750 + 4.90 + 818,131 + 8.40 - 63,699 - 16.80 + 58,304 + 23.60 + 812,736 + 7.80 GRAND TOTAL $39,000,134 $41,217,620 +2,217,486 + 5.68% March 2, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting) Final action on the State budget by the General Assembly will have some effect on the revenue estimates, but is not anticipated to be significant. Revenue changes resulting from the General Assembly's decision will be provided when known, hopefully during your work sessions. Attached to this memorandum are summaries of major operational expenses and resources (revenues) to meet those expenses. In broad terms, there are no significant program changes, and no significant revenue changes. There is an improved format for the school budget, constructed on a cost center basis, which has been planned for several years. The format makes comparisons with earlier budget information more difficult, but should make budget analysis and management more effective. Projections of current years' expenditures and revenues indicate the General Fund will end this fiscal year with black ink, in spite of a decline in revenues which is not yet improving. Projections of revenues and expenditures in the School Fund are not available, but will be incorporated into the budget when completed. For purposes of preparing this document, it has been assumed that expenditures will not exceed revenues in the School Fund. The information in this budget document represents many hours of effort by staffs, boards, and citizens. This document would not be possible to compile without the dedication and assistance of many people. Their contribution is gratefully acknowledged as it is presented for your review. REVENUES A. General Fund: You have received an earlier report that the biennial reassessment resulted in an increase in assessment values of existing proPerties of 13.3 percent. New construction added another 6.7 percent to the base, making a total base increase of 20 percent, from $1.5 billion to $1.8 billion. Translated into net tax revenue increases, the existing properties will provide $1.2 million, the new construction $0.6 million for a total increase of $1.8 million, or 15.4 percent. The difference between a 20 percent base increase and a 15.4 percent net revenue increase is the land use tax deferral. These numbers will change slightly as appeals by property owners are considered, and some adjustments made by the Board of Equalization. Those changes are not expected to be significant. Traditionally, new construction revenues have been considered as being retained in the County budget for new or expanding operational costs, while increases in revenues derived from existing property value reassessments have been examined for tax rate adjustments to partially offset the impact of the higher assessments. Most everyone realizes that property value increases do not usually reflect the property owner's ability to pay the resulting tax increases. Staff efforts to recommend a reduction in the real estate tax rate to partially offset the reassess- ment increase has once again been unsuccessful when total revenues are compared to the estimated needs of all departments and agencies. The last roll-back in the real estate tax rate was made in the reassessment year of 1979 to fund the FY 79-80 budget. The major reason for not recommending a rate reduction is that real estate taxes provide 38 percent of the total revenues, and a 15.4 percent increase in that one source calculates to be a six percent increase of the total revenues. When other revenues are not increasing due primarily to the slow economy, this one resource has to be depended upon more heavily to support budgetary needs. For your consideration of this matter, a one-cent (15) rate change in the real estate rate affects net revenues by $149,365. A one-cent (15) rate change in the personal property rate affects revenues by $8,265. Two sources of additional revenue were examined by the staff as an offset for a possible reduction in the real estate tax revenues, or as new revenues for funding new programs or services. One source is an adjustment of the vehicle license (decal) fee from $15 to $20, now allowed by State law, which would generate $170,000 in additional funds. The second source is an amendment to the consumer's. utility tax ordinance to include water consumers in addition to the electric, telephone, and natural gas consumers presently being taxed. This source could provide $215,000 additional funds, depending upon the rate and the maximums used. The calculations are made on 20 percent of the first $15 of the utility bill of residential consumers, which is a limit imposed by State law. Calculations for industrial and commercial consumers are based upon the rate and maximums in the County Code, which are as follows: Residential electric and telephone = 20 percent on first $20 of monthly bill, no tax on bill exceeding $20 Residential gas - 20 percent on first $t0 of monthly bill, no tax on bill exceeding $10 Commercial/Industrial electric, telephone, and gas = 10 percent on first $3,000 of monthly bill, 2 percent on remainder of bill that exceeds $3,000 The amount of the utility bill in all categories is exclusive of any federal and state taxes March 2, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting) One source of General Fund revenue that is recommended and included in the budget is a permit fee for soil investigation of septic tank fields by Health Department sanitarians and for inspection of the installation of the septic tanks. This fee, if approved, would be enacted by County ordinance, collected by Health Department personnel, and is estimated to generate $35,000. A final new source of revenue will be rental of space by Federal and State agencies in the completed County Office Building, which will provide $10,200 for a partial year of usage. B. School Fund: The School Fund reflects a $812,736 increase or 7.8 percent from Federal, State, and miscellaneous sources of revenue. The largest portion of the increase ($818,131) is calculated from State sources, of which $581,453 is from the Basic Aid formula, an increase of 12.8 percent. State Sales tax is projected to drop $125,278, a 6.08 percent loss from this year's budget estimate, but a two percent increase over current year revised estimates. Federal revenues show a reduction of $63,699 or 16.8 percent exclusive of changes in Federal revenues for self- sustaining programs, which will be included later. The General Fund recommended amount of $14,019,300 for school operations would provide the School Fund an additional $759,217 over 82-83 budgeted revenues, which added to the $812,736 from Federal, State sources totals $1,517,953, a total increase of 6.65 percent over 82-83 revenues. EXPENDITURES A. General Government Operations: One new program is recommended for funding, the 911 Dispatch Center, estimated to cost an additional $45,000 in operational expenses. Capital costs for the center are funded in the Capital Improvement Program. Other departments and agencies basically remain unchanged. Four new positions are proposed to existing departments,.two deputies for the Sheriff's Department, one accountant in the Finance Department, and one computer operator to begin a night shift in the Data Processing Department. State funding of the additional deputies is not anticipated. Personnel costs, salaries plus fringe benefit programs, comprise 54.7 percent -'of general operations. A salary increase of five percent on July 1 is recommended, which would be accomplished by a salary scale increase of five percent to the County's Pay and Classification Plan. A study of the plan was authorized in the fiscal year, the results of which will be presented to you in March. The five percent adjustment is recommended from reviewing the preliminary information from the -~study, and from examining employment market statistics. As you know, salary adjustments have always been made to keep the County competitive in the employment market, and not to match inflation factors. Inflation factors are considered, however, and in years of double digit inflation, salaries have not kept pace. Now that inflation is not as severe, salary adjustments can gain some ground. For your discussion of this recommendation, a one percent scale adjustment calculates to be $45,000 in salaries and fringe benefit costs. The performance evaluation merit plan is proposed to continue, which will provide approximately 30 percent of general government employees with a five percent step increase. The merit system may be proposed to be modified to a 2.5 percent - five percent plan when the Pay and Classification Plan Study is presented in March. The FICA salary plan, in effect since July 1981, will be reversed January 1, 1984 due to Congressional action which removes the plan from the Social Security program. It is scheduled to be converted in the same manner in which it was started, to assure that the employees salary base after FICA taxes are paid will be the same under the current plan and under the converted plan. This will increase salaries by 0.5 percent on January 1. Since the County as employer has realized the payroll savings from the FICA plan, it has been the staff's understanding that the County will finance the conversion costs. Therefore, the one-half percent January adjustment is recommended to be in addition to the five percent July adjustment. There are no ~major changes in fringe benefit programs. The costs of these programs a~?~alculated to increase in proportion to the salary increases, except the medical insurance plan, which is recommended to remain the same without a cost increase. That plan continues in sound financial condition and the staff believes that it can be funded another fiscal year at current appropriations. It will be monitored quarterly to assure that this recommen- dation is sound. Other operational costs do not contain any significant item except for reductions in vehicle operations caused primarily by the savings in insurance costs gained from recent insurance study, and by reductions in fuel costs from declining prices which are now 18 percent lower than projected for this year, and continuing to decline. Estimates for next year do not anticipate a rise in vehicular fuel costs. B. School Operations: The ~c~ool budget reflects basically a maintenance of current operations, calcu- lated on a student enrollment of 9,150. Some limited growth in the enrichment and computer awareness programs is planned. A net loss of five teaching positions is planned (-7 in secondary education, +2 in middle school enrichment programs) with a full time Volunteer Coordinator planned in lieu of a part time position. Personnel costs comprise 80.6 percent of the total budget. A salary scale adjustment of two percent is proposed for teaching employees with retention of March 2, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting) the five percent step increase for those employees in steps 0 through 10 of the scale. Employees in the top step of the scale, step 11, are proposed to receive a two percent increase in addition to the two percent scale adjustment. Funds for school system employees assigned to the classified (non teaching) salary scale have been requested, which would provide a seven percent adjustment calculated to include the Pay and Classification study revision, a merit pay plan that is to be adopted, and a cost of living adjustment. Each one percent of salary adjustment in the school system calculates to be $200,000 in personnel costs (salary plus fringe benefits). The teaching employees comprise $150,000 of that total, and the classified employees $50,000. The FICA salary plan conversion is funded for January 1. The salary adjustment to make the conversion is proposed at 0.65 percent, which will assure that the salary base after FICA taxes are paid will remain the same, and additionally compensate employees for increased federal tax liability resulting from the increased salary created by the conversion. This should be reconciled with the general government employee conversion plan. Total proposed capital outlay associated with the operating budget increases 37.5 percent over 82-83 appropriations. It does not represent large items but is primarily comprised of relatively small items throughout the school system. Bus replacement is being reduced from 10 units in 82-83 to two vans with hydraulic lifts in 83-84. Two-way radios are proposed for buses operating in remote regions of the County. More specific details of operational requests and recommendations will be provided during work sessions. The major area of concern will probably be salary adjustments, not only because that comprises a major portion of the total budget, but also because there are differences in the adjustments being considered. It is recommended that any adjustment approved be equitable among the employees assigned to the several salary scales involved." Mr. Agnor said that projections of final 1982-83 revenues and expenditures in the General Fund show that although there will probably be a shortfall in revenues, the staff has cut expenditures so that the General Fund will end the year with a black balance. The same projections for the School Fund have not been receiYed from the School Staff, but for purposes of preparing this budget, it was estimated that expenditures would not exceed revenues in the School budget for the current fiscal year. Mr. Fisher noted that in the explanation for conversion from the FICA plan for salaries, the factor used for general government employees is different from the factor used for school employees. He asked the reason for this difference. Mr. Agnor said that he had written his memorandum before he conferred with Mr. David Papenfuse, Assistant in charge of Business and Finance for the Schools, and the .065 factor used for School employees has since been converted to the .050 factor used for general government employees. Agenda Item No. 3. Work Session: Education budget. Mrs. Jessie Haden, Chairman of the School Board, was present. She said that the School Superintendent would make the presentation of the School budget. Dr. Carlos Gutierrez said that when the Board of Supervisors evaluates the School Board's requested budget, it should have information available on what school divisions similar to Albemarle County do with regard to expenditure levels, tax rate levels, and personal income. The request from the School Board is for an 8.6 percent increase over the current year's budget. The County Executive has recommended an increase of 5.7 percent over the current level of funding, and Dr. Gutierrez said he finds that to be a reasonable figure. It has been said that the cost of living increased about five percent~this current year, but the cost of fringe benefits for school employees increased 20 percent during the current year. The cost of fringe benefits is a matter over which the School Board and staff have no direct control. Of the $1.5 million in new money which the County Executive's recommendation would give, 56 percent of that amount would go toward fixed costs; increases over which the School Board and staff have no control. Therefore, the amount of increase requested for areas over which there is control is about three percent, or $700,000. Dr. Gutierrez said the Albemarle County School system is one of the largest employer's in the County and when an operation is people intensive, it is difficult to maintain and improve operations, and to provide the necessary incentives for people to continue to work for the school system. The School Board feels it can continue to show improvements if the budget is funded at the level requested. Dr. Gutierrez said he would like to mention some facts about salaries in terms of their relative position with national and state norms. Figures for the 1982-83 School year indicate that the national average for teacher's salaries is $20,531; in Virginia, the average is $18,676. In Albemarle County, the average taxable salary is about $4,000 less than the State average. Dr. Gutierrez said he feels that the increase built into the proposed School budget is totally inadequate either as compensation for existing employees or as an incentive for new employees. Last year, Albemarle County's standing was improved so that it is now listed as No. 72 out of the 140 school divisions. Mr. Lindstrom noted that on Page 2 of the Revenue projections in the School budget Under the title "Recovered Costs" it is stated that the average instructional salary is $18,761. He said he did not understand that figure. Mr. Papenfus said that is the maximum taxable salary on which the State will reimburse fringe benefits. Mr. Lindstrom asked if that figure has anything to do with the average maximum salary in Albemarle County. Mr. Papenfus said no. Ma~ch 2, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting) Dr. Gutierrez continued by saying that one of' the biggest criticisms leveled against any governmental agency is that it is "top heavy"'and the Schools have received that criticism. Therefore, the number of supervisory personnel is being reduced this year by 1.5. On the cabinet level, the School system will be operated with only the superintendent and two assistants next year. That is down from six in 1981-82. There are 66 central school office employees; about 7.3 percent of the school staff. An effort is being made to have all the people in the central office pull their own weight; this effort will continue until everyone is working at 110 percent capacity. The teaching staff has been reduced by five in the next budget. There has been a reduction of seven teaching positions in the middle and secondary schools, but the net decrease is five because there will be two teachers added for the gifted and talented program. Dr. Gutierrez said the School Board knows that the County has a rich teacher/pupil ratio, and every position is being scrutinized, and if it is not necessary, it will be eliminated. Dr. Gutierrez said this proposed budget is reflective of responsible, fiscal management. Mr. Papenfus is introducing the concept of cost centers in this budget. This concept will place the responsibility for operating within budget limits directly on the shoulders of the cost center heads, whether that be principals or other persons. At this time, it is expected that the 1982-83 fiscal year will be finished with a black balance, but only by a very small margin. The School Board and staff have worked hard to address the problem of the inherited deficit and have eliminated the possibility of that happening again. This proposed budget contains funds to hire a person on the instructional side of the staff of the same quality as Mr. Papenfus. It is expected ~hat that person will show the same level of efforts and there will be continued improvements in the instructional program as a result of hiring this yet unknown person. Dr. Gutierrez said that one of the thrusts of his administration during the last eighteen months has been the idea of facing those people who are not operating at 100 percent efficiency and trying to help them improve. The first thrust has been humane; dealing with an incompetent employee by assuming that they can become competent, by providing staff development experience, by helping to train them, and after a reasonable length of time, if that does not work, by biting the bullet and taking other action. This has been done in seventeen separate cases. It is a drain on the organization when this is done, but be feels that the system owes the public a staff of competent people. Another thrust of this budget is instructional accountability. What is really being done for children and humanity? Dr. Gutierrez said it is hard to answer this question based on information which was inherited. Because this is a paper-based operation, it is difficult to know how well the operation is doing on a short-term basis. This year a new office called "Organizational Research and Development" headed by Dr. Terry Schwartz has been set up. Dr. Schwartz is developing a computer-based, pupil-data program that should enable the system to know instantly how well things are doing an any number of measurements. The salary of Dr. Schwartz is being paid from Federal money, but the costs of machine and software will come from local monies. Another thrust of the budget is basic instruction of fundamentals. There ar~e a number of pilot programs in operation now which will be expanded into further schools. The "Effective Schaols Project" is one of those programs. The staff knows what makes a good school and is trying to be sure that through staff development everyone working in that school also knows what makes a good school. "Improving Teacher Effectiveness" is another successful program which has been going on in a few schools this year, and which has been enthusiastically received. The program is designed to help teachers deliver the fundamentals of reading instruction, computational instruction, and basics in computer literacy. At the present time, there are not computers in all of the schools, however, next year there will be enough computers for all fourth and fifth graders to get hands-on experience. Computer literacy will be required as part of the general science course in the eighth grade in all middle schools, but computer literacy and computer programming are still an elective in the high schools. Dr. Gutierrez said he feels that the State is only a few years away (maybe no more than five years) from requiring computer literacy as a prerequisition for graduation. This budget contains funds to lease an additional sixty machines next year, with accompanying training and accompanying software. Another thrust of the budget is how to deal with between 750 and 1000 students who will be identified as "gifted and talented" The County has done a good job during the last decade of meeting the needs of the lower segment of the pupil population. A higher percentage of pupils remain in school today. The United States has the most literate society in the world today. However, meeting the needs of the lower segment of the population has been done at the expense of the top fifteen percent of pupils. Dr. Gutierrez said he feels that the generation of young people graduating today know less than~their parents. The gifted and talented division got off to a good start this year serving 212 youngsters grades K - 12. It is estimated that at least 450 pupils need service, so this budget includes money for the addition of two teachers to this program. Dr. Gutierrez said that concluded his opening remarks. The school system is operating well within the range of acceptable limits. One of the main goals of his administration is improvement. This budget request is not for money to maintain the system but to improve the system. He asked that the Board act favorably on the budget request, which he feels is a reasonable request level. Mr. Fisher asked about the statement made by Dr. Gutierrez that the School Fund would end the year in the black. Dr. Gutierrez said it is expected that the balance will be $7,000. Mr. Fisher said he would like to see the forecast for expenditures for the 1982-83 fiscal year compared with expected revenues for 1982-83. Comparing expenditures with appropriations has been a problem in the past. Dr. Gutierrez said Mr. ?apenfus has been working very hard trying to arrive at the expected end-of-year balance. When he referred to a forecast, he was talking about both expenditure and revenue levels. March 2, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting) At 8:35 P.M., the Board recessed. When the meeting reconvened at 8:46 P.M., Mr. Fisher announced that the final score for the basketball game tonight was, Virginia, 107; Wake Forest, 74. · Next to speak for the Education budget Was Mr..David Papenfus, Assistant for Finance and Business Management. Mr. Papenfus showed many slides to illustrate how this year's · budget was calculated. Mr. Lindstrom said he would again like to ask about the figure listed under "Recovered Costs". (Note: The paragraph in question~on Page 2 of "Revenue Details" reads: "This amount represents the State's recovery of employer incurred costs for fringe benefits. All!~'~ rates are based upon 54 teachers per 1000 pupils with anticipated enrollment of 9150 and an.~ ~ average instructional salary of $18,761, taxable." Figure shown for recovery is $1,171,464~) Mr. Papenfus said the $1+ million was computed on the average salary of $14,000+, but the $1+ million includes reimbursement for professionals also, so the $18,761 is the average professional salary on which reimbursement would be received. Mr. Fisher asked the actual amount of the average instructional salary. Mr. Papenfus said he could compute that figure~? He continued his presentation by referring to a recapitulation of anticipated revenues. State revenues are expected to increase by 8.4 percent, while miscellaneous funds will increase by 1.2 percent as a result of charging for driver education courses. Under expen- ditures, compensation costs increase by 6.6 percent; fringe benefits increase about 20 percent: operating expenses are reduced by .06 percent; and capital outlay costs increase about 38 percent. Mr. Fisher asked if Mr. Papenfus was referring to buildings under the capital outlay item. Mr. Papenfus said this figure is for non-recurring expenditures; for anything that wears out that costs over $200. Mr. Fisher asked if this figure includes the cost of leases on word processors. Mr. Papenfu~ said yes; this is an alternative to out-right purchase of equipment. These leases are shown as a non-recurring cost because of the limited life of the lease, and are shown as a capital expenditure with an alternative payment schedule At the end of a four-year lease, the equipment will belong to the County. Mr. Papenfus said he has developed sixty cost-centers in this proposed budget where controls will be placed and expenditures monitored. He noted that the costs for the School Board are high because all fringe benefits have been included in this category. Mr. Papenfus went ahead to show slides demonstrating how each school principal arrived at expenditure figures for the operation of the individual schools for the next fiscal year. Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks the development of the cost-centers will be of benefit to all who work with the budget. He has set through several School Board budget work sessions and he feels there was an attempt by the School Board and School administration to come to grips with a tight budget situation, and he feels the cuts made were agonizing. Mr. Lindstrom said that in his opinion, the School Board and School administration did a good job of putting together,this budget, and he feels they will have difficulty dealing with anything that is ~not right on line. Mr. Papenfus said he had forwarded to the Clerk a copy of the new expenditure estimates for the current year which will be approved by the School Board soon. He is still working on revenue projections for the current year. Mr. Papenfus said he hopes that the Board of Supervisors can legally accept a budget based on this new cost center translation. He feels this new format will give a much better basis for analysis. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Agnor if that is possible. Mr. Agnor said that State law does not recognize cost centers, so there may have to be two translations of the budget made. Mr. Fisher said he would like to direct some questions to the School Board. Several years ago there were additional steps at the top of the scale for teachers with over twenty years experience. Last year, the School Board did away with that scale and went back to steps 0 to 11. This year an 11+ is being added to the scale. He asked if the School Board is working its way back to 20. Mrs. Haden said there is a difference of opinion as to what ~he recommended salary increase is this year. Some feel it is seven percent, while others say it is two percent on the base, with a five percent incremental step. There was concern expressed that because the School Board was going with the two percent on the base, that the people at the top of the scale would receive only a two percent increase, so the 11+ step was added for the 1983-84 year only, and it is so stated in the minutes of the School Board. Mr. Fisher asked what is expected will be done for the 1984-85 year. Mrs. Haden said it is hoped that the increase next year will be more than two percent, plus five percent. Mr. Fishe~ asked if the 11+ category will remain as part of the scale. Mrs. Haden said the School Board does not plan to keep that category. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the School Board knows whether the redistricting to be put into place next fall will create any savings in this budget. Mrs. Haden said the budget reflects a savings of five teaching positions. A redistricting plan is not yet ready for adoption, and should no plan be ready to be put into place for the next fiscal year, it will be extremely difficult to operate the schools without those teaching poSitions. Mr. Lindstrom said he had heard a mention of saving approximately $170,000 if the redistricting plan were put into effect. He asked if there were any estimate at all of what might be saved if the plan presently proposed by the committee were accepted. Mrs. Haden said there are a lot o~ trade-offs in the redistricting. There are some projected savings in buildings, but then there might be a need to purchase two additional school buses. Mrs. Haden said she did not believe there would be a tremendous savings the first year, but over a longer period of time, there would be some savings. Mr. Lindstrom asked where the $170,000 figure had come from. Dr. Gutierrez said there could possibly be a savings in operations the first year of between $170,000 and $200,000, unless new school buses are necessitated by this change. Mr. Fisher said that in looking at the slides presented by Mr. Papenfus, the amount shown for routine travel for one of the schools amounted to about 28 miles per day for every day of the year. He asked if that amount of travel expense is necessary to the operation of the school. He also asked if the School Board had a written policy as to what constitutes reimbursable mileage. Mrs. Haden said she had never seen such a policy, although she has heard that one exists. Mr. Fisher asked if a copy of the policy could be sent to the Board. March 2, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting) Mrs. Haden thanked the Board of Supervisors for scheduling this work session on a night meeting. She said this was requested by members of the public at school work sessions earlier in the month. She noted that with the new cost center approach to budgeting, she had felt it might be helpful for the Board to see some examples, and the process that the building admin- istrators had gone through to arrive at the requested costs. Mrs. Haden said she feels this is a positive step and she is comfortable right at the moment with the way that the School Division is handling its finances. Mrs. Haden noted that for the first time, there will be a $50.00 fee charged for driver education. Although this will not completely cover the cost of the training, it will help. The School Board has been told many times that it could not cut funds from the athletic budget, but funds have been cut. It was suggested by students and some parents, that there be a fee charged for athletics, but this will not be considered for next year. A science resources center will help make the staff more efficient, while saving only a small amount of money. It has been said that when something is once included in the budget, it is almost impossible to get it out, but this year the School Board cut the amount to be allocated to the alternative education program almost in half. Mrs. Haden said she concurs with the opening remarks of the Superintendent and urges the Board of Supervisors to fund the education budget at the requested level. Mrs. Haden said she does not believe that money necessarily equates with quality education nor with happiness, but on the other hand if you don't have money it leads to a lot of unhappiness, so if you don't have money, quality education will be done in the County and the citizens don't want that. There is quality education in this County now, and the people speaking at the School Board's public hearings on the budget expressed a desire to keep quality education. Dr. Charles Tolbert said he would like to say a word about compensation. He was not in favor of the 11+ step. If the School Board is able to fund salaries at a reasonable level, next year, he has already said he will vote to reduce the level of the 11+ teachers back to an 11. As an example, using the salary increase of two percent, which is basically what teachers are being given, fourth year teacher next year will earn two percent more than a fourth year teacher this year. In times when the cost of living is approximately four percent, this actually reduces the take home pay of a fourth year teacher. Dr. Tolbert said he is not at all happy with this situation. The classified employees of the Education Department have not had a salary increase, other than the base increase, for the three years since the new scale was adopted. That is partly the fault of the School Board for not having put into place a salary plan that would allow these employees to move up in the system. Mrs. Sally Thomas said she felt everyone would find some interesting things in the School Budget if they would take time to read same. For instance, administrative supervisors are going to substitute teach when teachers have to be taken out of the classroom for a couple of days each year for in-service training. Mrs. Thomas said she is frustrated because the Board of Supervisors passes judgment on the school budget and does not really know what is going on in the school system because the two bodies do not have meetings during the year between the budget work sessions. The budget presented tonight has a flaw by the fact that everything is shown; it is all there. You can see exactly how the money is being spent. If the Board of Supervisors does not have time to read the whole budget, Mrs. Thomas said she would ask that the Board put some trust in the School Board and recognize that the Albemarle County school system is making major, specific, evaluated improvements in educational facilitie~ Mr. Fisher again requested a copy of the 1982-83 fiscal year education expenditure and revenue projections. Miss Nash asked how many computers there will be in the secondary schools next year. Dr. Gutierrez said 60 computers will be purchased, making a total of 90 computers in the schools. Mr. Agnor said that of the $373,000 left unfunded in the School budget, there is a possibility of reducing that amount by $140,000 by just changing some numbers. This must be reconfirmed by Mr. Papenfus. The budget will then be within one percent of the requested amount. Mr. Fisher said that came about because the School Board had already cut the request to within one percent and he would like to give them credit for that. Mr. Fisher noted that the public hearing for the overall 1983-84 County budget is scheduled for the night of April 1983. Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not on the Agenda. Mr. Fisher noted that he had recently attended the NACo Legislative Conference in Washington, D. C. A great deal of discussion focused on General Revenue Sharing, Block Grant funding and Payments-In-Lieu. Senator Bob Dole told attendees that the General Revenue Sharing law will probably be extended, although there are many different opinions on ways to extend the program. Mr. Fisher said if the General Revenue Sharing law is not extended, the new "buzZ" word will be "Revenue Space" which means that Congress is giving the localities a chance to go out and raise taxes to fund those things that have been funded from General Revenue Sharing funds. Mr~ Fisher said he had been requested by a County citizen to have the Board of Supervisors consider recognizing Ralph Sampson for his contributions. Mr. Fisher said he had asked the staff to prepare a resolution for the Board's consideration, and if adopted, he would ask Mrs. Cooke to make a presentation at the game on Sunday declaring RALPH SAMPSON SUNDAY. Mr. Lindstrom said other people on the basketball team have done an outstanding job this year and it bothers him to have just one person singled out for recognition. Mrs. Cooke said she agrees that no team is a one-man effort, but she feels that whoever prompted this request was looking at the fact that this is Ralph's senior year. The rest of the members on the team will still be around for another year or two. It is the feeling of a lot of people that this would be a proper send off for someone who has brought a lot of recognition to the community, the University of Virginia, and the State of Virginia. Mrs. Cooke said she feels that a Ralph Sampson comes along only once in a lifetime, and she offered motion to adopt a resolution declaring Sunday, March 6, 1983, as Ralph Sampson Sunday. Miss Nash said she would second the motion if Mrs. Cooke would allow her to add some words to the resolution mentioning the whole team this year. Mrs. Cooke said she had no objection to adding a reference to the entire team. A short discussion followed. Mr. Henley said he and Ray Jones are glad that Ralph Sampson is graduating this year (Mr. Henley and Mr. Jones being graduates of Virginia Tech) and he would second Mrs. Cooke's motion. Roll was called and the motion to adopt the following resolution carried by the following recorded vote: March 2, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting) AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher, Mr. Henley, Mr. Lindstrom (qualified) and Miss Nash (qualified). NAYS: None. WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, acknowledges the accomplishments of the 1982-1983 University of Virginia Basketball Team and staff; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors recognizes the outstanding achievements of RALPH LEE SAMPSON, JR. during his four years as a member of the University of Virginia Basketball Team; and WHEREAS, since Ralph Lee Sampson, Jr.'s first basketball game on November 30, 1979, through his final home game appearance on March 6, 1983, he has set numerous records, won several national and conference "Player of the Year" titles, and helped lead the University of Virginia Basketball Team to more winning games than any other basketball team in the nation over the last four years; and WHEREAS, Ralph Lee Sampson, Jr., has not only been an inspiration to University of Virginia~Basketball fans, but also to the entire community, as a fine example of sportsmanship, team spirit and determination; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby recognize RALPH LEE SAMPSON, JR., for his accom- plishments; and in his honor, hereby declares Sunday, March 6, 1983, as: RALPH SAMPSON SUNDAY Agenda Item No. 5. Executive Session: Legal and Personnel Matters. Mr. Fisher said this session had been requested by the County Attorney, but because of the length of this work session, this discussion can wait until the Board's regular meeting next week. Agenda Item No. 6. Adjournment. At 10:35 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Henley, to adjourn this meeting until March 7, 1983, at 1:00 P.M. for a work session on the 1983-84 County budget. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. No. ne.