1981-02-18 adj 085
February 18, 1981 (Adjourned from February 12, 1981)
An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was
held on February 18, 1981, at 2:00 P.M. in the Board Room of the County Office Building,
Charlottesville, Virginia; said meeting being adjourned from February 12, 1981.
Present: Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher-, J. T. Henley, Jr. (arrived at 2:08 P.M.), F. Anthony
Iachetta, C. Timothy Lindstrom (arrived at 3:37 P.M.), Layton R. McCann and Miss Ellen V. Nash.
Absent: None.
Officer Present: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 2:09 P.M.
Agenda Item No. 2. Work Session - 1981-82 County Budget.
Agenda Item No. 2a. Presentation by County Executive.
budget, basically following the memorandum which follows:
Mr. Agnor summarized the
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Board of Supervisors
Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive
February 13, 1981
Proposed FY 81-82 County Budget
Submitted herewith for review is the proposed FY-82 County budget totaling
$34,101,062, an increase of $3,742,749 over FY 80-81, or 12.33%. In its present
form, it is balanced without an adjustment in property tax rates, thereby retaining
reassessm~n~ revenues. As proposed, it omits approximately $1 million in
unfunded requests; $477,917 in general operations, $296,396 in school operations,
and $250,000 in the capital budget. It includes recommendations to increase
recreation fees and building/ zoning permit fees to support costs, to add a user
fee for landfill costs for University of Virginia waste, and to utilize $118,663
in carry-over funds to balance the proposed budget.
The opening of the central office building on McIntire Road, the establishment of
the central data processing operation, and the beginning of the central vehicle
maintenance facility comprise major new programs. Except for these, the proposed
budget does not reflect new services or expansion of existing services. It does
reflect spiraling inflation and attempts to control costs, a frustrating process
in terms of results.
A number of items will probably change when the General Assembly completes its
session and the State budget. Significant among these is the State's funding of
the standards of quality for the school system, the funds allocated to law enforcement
through H.B. 599 (Michie legislation), the outcome of the authority for localities
to assess service charges on tax exempt properties, and a significant deficiency
in State funding of jails both in the current fiscal year as well as the fiscal year
which this budget addresses. With these variables, as well as several others which
are less significant, this proposed budget will be subject to revenue changes in the
next ten days. In order to meet the budget adoption schedule of early April, these
moving numbers have been projected as accurately as assumptions could be made and
compiled for the work sessions beginning February 18.
As with each budget cycle, Objectives are established and revenue resources forecast.
These will be reviewed in detail later in this summary report. The adoption of the
State Uniform System of Accounts in July 1980, to facilitate making comparative costs
of local government in Virginia, has caused difficulty in making comparisons of
present budgets with earlier budgets. This system of accounts does not apply to
school budgets, and therefore the school budget is in the same format. The staff
has attempted to cross-track the accounts as accurately as possible to provide the
Board with comparisons needed for review and decisions.
Each year the budget process is more difficult than the previous year. The infla-
tionary costs of operations, along with the changes in account codes, has presented
a formidable task in comparing needs with resources, and separating needs from
desires in making recommendations. This task would have been impossible without
the assistance and dedication of the staff, which is gratefully acknowledged as
this document is presented for your consideration.
SUMMARY OF 81-82 PROPOSED BUDGET
REVENUES
The Board received a report earlier, that the biennial reassessment resulted in an
increase in current taxes from real estate of $1,374,426 or 22.18%, excluding new
construction which provides $620,468. Traditionally, new construction revenues
have been considered as being retained by the County for new or expanding services,
while increases in values for existing properties were examined for tax rate adjust-
ments to partially offset the impact of tax assessments, which everyone realizes
do not ordinarily reflect the owner's ability to pay these increases. Efforts to
recommend rate adjustments this year were not successful in the face of perceived
needs. Two points in the reassessment report deserve repeating. One is that the
assessment increase is a two-year change. The second is that real estate taxes
provide 29.1% of.the total County budget, and even though it is a very significant
source of revenue, a 22.18% increase is not a sufficient resource to fund County
operations when other revenues are not increasing in proportion to inflationary
costs or to operational needs.
February_~ 198_l~(Ad~ourned from February 12, 1981)
Revenues have been estimated at very high levels in order to avoid a tax increase
in addition to the reassessment. In December, the Finance Director estimated
that increases of $2.6 million from local sources could be considered for budget
planning purposes. This was a net increase, meaning that increases in real estate
assessment values are partially offset by increases in land use deferrals and
tax relief for the elderly. These deferrals and relief programs are carried in
the expenditure side of the budget as refunds for accounting purposes, which enhances
the federal revenue sharing allocation to the County. The December estimate, made
prior to final reassessment totals being available, was determined in January to
be off by 1.2%, or approximately $30,000, so it is considered as being accurate.
Additional revenues are estimated through improvement in taxes collected due to
the increased penalty and interest charged, plus proposed increases in recreation
fees, building/zoning permit fees and the addition of a landfill user fee proposed
to be collected from the University to partially replace the current service charge
fee which the University paid to the County in 1980 for the local costs of law
enforcement, solid waste disposal, fire protection and education, and which the
General Assembly appears to be determined to take away from local governments.
These additional revenues, plus the earlier $2.6 million forecast, are estimated
to provide $3.4 million to the General Fund, a 15.62% increase. This increase
will be offset by refunds increasing $375,755; land use comprising 3363,330, and
elderly relief the balance of $12,425 giving a net revenue increase of 33.02
million, which includes using $118,663 of carry-over balance funds. Without the
carry-over funds, the actual net increase is $2.9 million in the General Fund, a
13.49% increase.
The School Fund Revenues reflect a $714,151 increase, or 8.66%. The bulk of this
is in Basic State Aid which increases $476,509 or 12.43% based upon an allocation
of $1186 per pupil, an uncertainty at this time. State sales tax revenues are
estimated to increase $71,000 or 4.11%, possibly a conservative estimate. Sales
tax in the General Fund is estimated to increase 17.79%, although the distribution
of sales taxes back to the locality is not the same in these two funds.
EXPENDITURES
Several objectives were established in preparing expenditure requests, as follows:
I. To adjust employee salaries and benefits as adequately as resources
allow in an effort to diminish the impacts of inflation and attempt to remain
competitive in the job market.
2. To recognize the funding needs required for the move of administrative
offices to the McIntire Road Office Building, the establishment of the central
data processing operation, and the opening of the central vehicle maintenance
facility.
3. To increase the annual allocation of funds to the Capital Improvement
Program.
4. To continue the battle with inflation by limiting new programs or
expansion of existing programs to essential needs, previous approvals or
mandates.
A summary of these objectives is as follows:
1. For employee salaries, it is recognized that the County does not match
inflation, nor can it be forecast. An attempt is made to offset it partially,
and to respond to it after it has been calculated. A variety of numbers can be
found to support several viewpoints, but statistics provided by the Tayloe-Murphy
Institute have been used for several years. The latest report published in
December, 1980 shows a 10% increase in living costs in the Charlottesville area
for the 1979-80 study year. For several years, the County has averaged. 75-80%
of these calculations in general government salary increases. The general govern-
ment salary adjustments since 1977 have recently been determined by a consultant's
report to the Bo~d to have been proper and, with minor changes, competitive in
the market as of October 1980. This same consultant prepared the pay and classi-
fication plan for the school division. It was adopted by the School Board and
made effective in January 1981, the implementation being in two steps, the second
one occuring in July 1981.
Salary scales for general government employees and noninstructional employees in
the school system is recommended to increase 7.5%. Additionally, school division
employees are recommended to receive the second part of the implementation plan,
which is a one step increase (+5%) w~ithin their assigned salary range, moving a
large majority of these employees off the beginning step, or entry level of their
assigned range. These employees have many years of Service in the school system.
It is also proposed that general government employees.whose FICA salaries on
June 30, 1981 are $9700 or less r.eceive a one step increase (+5%)within their
assigned salary range in an effort to respond to their appeal for financial improve-
ment. This would apply to 35% of the total general government employees. It is
recommended that the merit system be retained and funded, and that the school
system be urged to continue their design of a merit plan for noninstructional
employees by July 1982.
February 18, 1981 (Adjourned from February 12, 1981)
Instructional salaries are requested to increase the base scale by 9.7%, plus a
year's service step for those eligible to receive one, thereby providing increases
for most employees already in the system of 11.9% to 13.6%. Fringe benefit costs
will be in addition to these increases. The funding requests of the school system
cannot be met with current revenues, and the areas of adjustments is a matter for
the School Board to determine in consultation with the Board of Supervisors after
final State revenues have been determined. To express a further opinion, the requested
percentage increases appear to be excessive when consideration is given to the payroll
costs (salaries plus fringe benefits). The County fringe benefit program is excellent
and much of it is a product of the salaries involved. I cannot speak to the job
market analysis except to emphasize that taxable wages have to be used, not FICA
wages, fringe programs compared, and volume of applications considered.
2. The funding of the staff and operational costs of the McIntire Road Office
Building, the data processing operation, and the vehicle maintenance facility is
estimated to require $267,590. The office building is estimated to be $132,000,
the computer center $101,000, and the vehicle maintenance operation $34,590. The
need for these major changes was recognized several years ago, approved after
lengthy study, and the allocation of resources in 81-82 has been planned for a
long time.
3. The proposed $250,000 increase in the annual allocation of General Fund
revenues to the Capital Improvement Program, is not funded in this budget. A
strenuous effort to retain that proposal was made by the staff, but funding
requests exceeded the ability to fund that need. The $t.0 million current level
of funding is retained, and increases will have to be funded from carry-over
funds in this~year,s budget. At mid-fiscal year, however, estimates do not
indicate a ~2~g~ficant balance available at the end of this budget year. Those
estimates will be reviewed in April to affirm their accuracy.
Expansion of existing staff or programs has been limited to the following:
A) One ~I~typist for the Housing Office.
B)
One appraiser in the Real Estate office to replace the use of outside
appraisers in the biennial reassessment, $13,665 salary offset by
$36,000 reduction annual convrac~.
c)
One position in Code Enforcement (Inspections) office as assistant
director, $16,606.
D) Two teaching positions in the Gifted and Talented program, $33,727.
E) One school bus driver trainer and safety officer, $12,672.
F) One part-time van driver for alternative education, $1,944.
It is possible that recommended levels of funding may result in removal of these
few additions as the budget work sessions proceed.
Expenditure requests and recommendations compared with current appropriations can be
summarized as follows:
REQUESTS~S~C~RRENT..:APPROPRIATION. . . . ~
80-81 81-82 Increase
Approp. Requests (Decrease) Percentage
General Operations $ 7,197,438 $ 8,641,354 $ 1,443,916 20.06
School System 19,008,280 . 21,662,454 . 2,654,174 13.96
Total Operations 26,205,718 30,303,808 4,098,090 15.64
Debt Service 1,919,631 1,963,392 43,761 2.28
Capital Program 1,000,000 1,250,000 250,000 25.0
Refunds 1,232,964 1,608,175 375,211 30.43
Totals $30,358,313 $35,125,375 $ 4,767,062 15.70
RECOMMENDED VS. REQUESTS
81-82 81-82 Increase
Request Recommended (Decrease) Percentage
General Operations $ 8,641,354 $ 8,163,437 $ (477,917) (5.53)
School System 21,662,454 21,366,058 (296,396) (1.37)
Total Operations 30,303,808 29,529,495 (774,313) (2.56)
Debt Service 1,963,392 1,963,392 -0- -O-
Capital Program 1,250,000 1,000,000 (250,000) (25.0)
Refunds . 1~608,175 1,608,175 -0- -0-
Totals $35,125,375 $34,101,062 (1,024,313) (2.92)
RECOMMENDED VS. CURRENT FUNDING
80-81 81-82 Increase
Approp. Recommended (Decrease) Percentage
General Operations $ 7,197,438 $ 8,163,437 $ 965,999 13.42
School System . 19,008,280 21,366,058 ...2,'357,778 12.40
Total Operations 26,205,718 29,529,495 3,323,777 12.68
Debt Service 1,919,631 1,963,392 43,761 2.28
Capital Program 1,000,000 1,000,000 -0- -0-
Refunds 1,232,964 ... 1,608,175 375,211 30.43
Totals $30,358,313 $34,101,062 $3,742,749 12.33
February 18, 1981 (Adjourned from February 12, 1981)
'088
General Operations carries the new costs of the three major operational increases,
$267,590 for the office building, computer center and vehicle maintenance garage.
Removing this increase from the above summary gives General Operations an increase
of existing operations totaling $698,409 or + 9.7%. Removing it from the total
operations of the general government and school division gives an operational
increase of $3,056,187 or 11.66%.
At the end of the presentation, Mr. Fisher asked if some of the cost associated with
opening of the new office building will not be offset by reduced rents paid. Mr. Agnor
said yes. Mr. Fisher said the Capital Improvements Program just adopted by the Board was
~redicated on adding an additional $500,000 to that fund each year. He asked Which projects
Would have to be postponed because of this deficiency. Mr. Agnor said he did not know at
this time. The Capital Budget will probably come back to the Board in May of this year.
Mr. Fisher then asked if there are any vacant positions in the school budget which have
been carried forward from year to year, but not filled. Mr. Agnor said he would check.
Miss Nash said she had read that the legislation allowing the use of the so-called FICA
plan for salaries will expire in '83 or '84. Mr. Agnor said that was correct, but after
Study of the question, it was decided that the County should use the plan as long as it
can. Dr. Iachetta asked Mr. Agnor if he had any recommendations at this time, as to how
to cover the $300,000+ deficit in the school budget. Mr. Agnor said he had searched the
school budget twice for items that might be one-time only costs, new programs and expansions
of programs. He did not find any. He assumes that because the school budget is heavily
oriented toward salaries, that the money will have to come from those categories. Dr.
Iachetta asked about programs not recommended for funding in the General Operations side
of the budget. He asked if the Board would be furnished a priority list. Mr. Agnor said
he could furnish a list of the requests not funded, most of which were regional agencies
previously federal funded. Mr. Agnor said he did not recommend new programs such as Teen
Involvement or Shelter for Help in Emergency or the level of funding requested by JAUNT.
There was another big item, a fire truck in the City's request, which he has pulled and
recommends be included in the Capital Budget. Dr. Iachetta said he did not see any proposal
for a fee system to enter the parks. Mr. Agnor said this has been discussed, but there
are many citizens who feel they have already paid for the parks and do not want to pay
again. Of course, fees are charged for swimming which is a costly operation and more
intensive in upkeep.
Agenda Item No. 2b) Sheriff. Request, $1,056,017; recommendation, $1,080,167. Mr. Agnor
said that during work sessions with the Sheriff, an amount was added to maintenance costs
of vehicles to more accurately reflect the current trend of operations. Although the
Sheriff will be using the new vehicle maintenance facility, the cost of that facility is
as yet unknown as is the cost of gasoline. Sheriff Bailey pointed out that approximately
72% of his budget is now funded by the State Compensation Board. Dr. Iachetta asked if
the juvenile officers are still funded in this budget. Sheriff Bailey said yes, in fact
he is going to Richmond soon to try and get that grant extended. Mr. Agnor pointed out
that if the Board approves the recommendation for the additional salary step, eleven
people in the Sheriff's department will be affected. There were no recommendations for
changes.
Agenda Item No. 2c) Social Services. Requested, $1,609,820; recommendation, $1,599,175.
Mr. Agnor said travel expenses had been kept at the same level or reduced through most of
the departments, but for Social Services, a small increase was granted because of training
programs operated by the State. Dr. Iachetta asked if this department would draw from a
motor pool if one is established. Mr. Agnor said be believes it would. Mrs. Morris was
present. There were no recommendations for changes.
Agenda Item No. 2d) Planning Department. Requested, $238,959; recommended, $239,209.
(Mr. Lindstrom arrived at 3:37 P.M.) Mr. Agnor noted that there is one vacant position in
this budget. It will not be filled unless the need arises. Mr. Tucker was present and
there were no recommendations for changes. '~
Agenda Item No. 2e) Inspections and Zoning. Requested for inspections was $380,979;
recommended, $379,368. Mr. Agnor said there is one new position in this budget, that of a
deputy building inspector. Mr. Agnor also said two changes were made in the budget request
today. Code 5413, Other Operating Expenses, was lowered from $600 to $450 because Mr. Vaughn
intends to purchase a piece of equipment in the current year's budget and will not need
the requested amount next year; also Code 7002, Furniture and Fixtures, should be changed
to a zero, since the filing cabinets contemplated will not be purchased at all. New total
will be $378,868. The Board and Mr. Vaughn discussed at length such things as the number
of inspectors in this department, soil erosion inspections and the need for the additional
person requested in this budget. Mr. Vaughn noted that the County has one year from
February, 1981 to adopt the new Soil Erosion Handbook Just issued by the State. No
recommendations were made for changes.
Zoning. Requested, $139,003; recommended, $138,163. Mr. Lindstrom asked several
questions about inspection fees. Dr. Iachetta questioned type of vehicles being used.
Mr. Vaughn said the compacts are not rugged enough and get fewer miles per gallon than the
bigger cars and trucks. Mr. Vaughn said he will have some suggestions on changes of fees
in the near future. There were no recommendations made for changes.
Agenda Item No. 2f) Engineering and Refuse Disposal.
requested amount was $182,887; recommended, $181,807.
amount was $367,332; recommended, $353,986.
For the Engineering Department
For Refuse Disposal, the requested
In the Engineering Budget, Mr. Agnor noted that there is one vacant position. Also a
decision will have to be made as to whether to buy a compact or mid-sized car. Mr. Bailey
said as to a compact car, he has not checked, but the department will need to be able to
carry surveying equipment in the car.
089
February 18, 1~81 (Adjourned from February 12, 1981)
For the Refuse Budget, Mr. Agnor said there has been a trench operation at the Keene
Landfill for a number of years which has been carried in Capital Budget, but which is
really a recurring expense and has been transferred to the general operations budget. The
Ivy Landfill budget was scrutinized and an adjustment was achieved based on weights from
the new scales. No recommendations were made for changes.
Agenda Item No. 2g) Parks and Recreation. Requested $392,936; recommended, $382,304.
Mr. Agnor said this budget reflects continuation of the Greenwood Community Center operation,
although a final decision on this will not be made by the Board until later. No recommendation
were made for changes.
Agenda Item No. 2h) Staff Services. Requested, $260,652; recommended, $329,352.
Mr. Agnor said the director of Staff Services has not been hired as of this date because
there is no vacant office in which to house that person. There are also four additional
persons included in this budget for the new central office building. The increase in this
budget is mainly due to electric and heating costs. No recommendations were made for
changes.
Agenda Item No. 2i) Housing. Requested $68,980; recommended, 368,780. Mr. Agnor
noted that one additional clerk-typist is included in this budget to help keep up with the
paper work occasioned by the Section 8 program and the HUD grants. No recommendations
were made for changes.
Agenda Item NO. 2j) Watershed Management. Requested $20,096; recommended, $19,996.
Mr. Agnor said that one-half of this budget is paid by the City. There were no recommendations
made for changes.
Agenda Item No. 2k) Legal Services. Requested $106,750; recommended $106,450. Mr. Lindsl
asked if any evaluation had been made of the cost of a full-time County Attorney compared
to the cost of the several part-time attorneys now on the staff. Mr. Agnor said no evaluation
has been made for several years. Mr. Lindstrom said he has been asked for this information
several times by citizens and would be interested in seeing such a comparison. No recom-
mendations were made for changes.
Agenda Item No. 2L) Board of Supervisors. Requested, $158,156; recommended, $157,721.
Mr. Fisher noted that there was no amount included for consultants in the annexation
matter. No other recommendations were made for changes.
Agenda Item No. 2m) County Executive. Requested, $101,600; recommended. $101,320.
Mr. Fisher said there was no increase in salary shown for the County Executive and he
would recommend that a 7 1/2% increase be shown; same as the basis for increases for
general government employees. Motion to add $2,780 to Code 1001, was offered by Dr. Iachetta,
seconded by Miss Nash, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
None.
Agenda Item No. 3. At 5:38 P.M., at the request of the Chairman, motion was offered
by Mr. Henley, seconded by Miss Nash, to adjourn into executive session to discuss legal
matters. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
None.
The Board reconvened into open session at 7:30 P.M. 'and immediately adjourned.
rom