2003-02-12 Afternoon(February 12, 2003, Afternoon -Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 1)
An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
February 12, 2003, at 4:00 p.m., Room 235, County Office Building, Mclntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
This meeting was adjourned from February 5, 2003.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Mr. Charles S. Martin (arrived at
5:45 p.m.), Mr. Walter F. Perkins, Mr. Dennis S. Rooker and Ms. Sally H. Thomas.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W. Davis,
Clerk, Ella W. Carey, and, County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg.
SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: PLEASE LIST
SCHOOL STAFF PRESENT: Dr. Kevin Castner, Superintendent.
Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at 4:00 p.m., by the Board's
Chairman, Mr. Dorrier, and by the School Board's Chair, Ms. McKeel.
Agenda Item No. 2. FY 2004 Revenue Update and Compensation/Benefit Recommendations.
Ms. Suyes said the market survey of 2002 showed that Albemarle is .5 above market median with
classified and administrators, and at market median as to salary. Concerning teachers, the Schools were
above market median at steps 0, 5 and 15, but were below market median at steps 10, 20, 30, 35 and the
maximum. WorldAtWork projected a 3.8 percent increase going into the next year. This information was
given to the Board in order to build the budget.
Ms. Suyes said that at a meeting in November, 2002 staff also reported on the status of the medical
plans. Staff had projected a 16 percent increase, and then on January 15, 2003, the joint Boards met and
approved the Health Care Committee's recommendation to increase employee premiums effective
February 1,2003, as claim projections for the current year will exceed plan revenue from Board
contributions, employee premiums and medical reserves. The Boards were informed that reserves will be
depleted if claims continue to run above projections.
Ms. Suyes said that for planning next year's budget, staff recommended a 20 percent increase in
the Boards' contribution for medical and dental insurance, which would go from $3840 to $4608 per full-
time person. In order to maintain the Boards' adopted strategy, the following would have to take place: 3.8
percent merit pool for classified/administrators; no classified scale adjustment; 4.08 percent average salary
increase across the pay scale (this includes step increase); continue the longevity payment for teachers and
classified; 20 percent increase in Board contribution for medical insurance; and, 14.3 percent increase in
Board contribution for dental insurance.
Mr. Dorrier said he understood that what the Compensation Committee had worked on was a goal
to strive for. Ms. Suyes said the strategy was to reach market and then to maintain it. The recommendation
is what would be necessary to maintain that strategy.
Next, Ms. Roxanne White, Assistant County Executive made a presentation concerning the revenue
changes over FY '03 and what General Government has had to do to meet expenditures within those
revenues. She said there is a 12.7 percent increase in real estate taxes. This will be offset by the $2.6
million shortfall or reduction in personal property taxes over the current year. That is a nine percent
reduction. Although there is a nice increase in real estate taxes, it is offset by that decrease so there is only
a 5.3 percent overall increase in property taxes. Other Local Revenues are down by 9.2 percent so there is
a 4.3 percent increase in Other Local Taxes. State and Federal revenues are down by 3.5 percent. The
bottom line is that there is an overall increase of $5.0 million for a 3.7 percent increase. She said that last
year at this point, there was $9.7 million for an increase of 8.2 percent.
Ms. White said people ask why the County has no money if there is an 18.75 percent increase in
real estate values. Looking at the calendar year of 2003, there is an 18.75 percent reassessment, but the
real estate revenues are collected across two fiscal years. One-half of the collection will be in FY '03, and
one-half of the collection will be in FY '04. Therefore, real estate revenues go up more gradually than they
did before the split billing process.
Ms. Boyd said what he finds confusing is that even though the first portion of the new appraisal will
be collected this year, next year the County will get a full 18 percent. Ms. White said there is an impact on
the taxpayer in the way of a tax increase from the reassessment.
Ms. White noted the allocation of local tax revenues. She said there is a $5.8 million increase in
local tax revenues and after deducting $1.0 million for Revenue-Sharing and $0.29 million for the transfer to
the Capital Fund, it leaves a balance of $4.5 million. That amount is then split 60 percent to the School
Division ($2.7 million) and 40 percent to Local Government ($1.8 million).
Ms. White said Local Government will have almost $1.8 million from those additional revenues,
less shortfalls in Other Local Revenues and State Revenues leaving about $1.022 million available.
Deducting General Government obligated expenditures for Ivy Landfill operations, Wachovia Building
(February 12, 2003, Afternoon -Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 2)
operations/maintenance, Comprehensive Services Act, Health Insurance increase, Monticello/Fire Station
operations, and the census increase at the Regional Jail of $2.046 million leaves a shortfall of $1.024
million. Staff proposes covering that shortfall by the freezing of eight positions, reducing department
baseline budgets, reducing on-going capital expenditures, level funding all community agencies, and no
funding of any new or expanded requests. That amounts to $1.3 million. There are some other things
which have been added in: a two percent merit pool for Local Government employees, and medical and
dental insurance premiums.
Mr. Bowerman asked the meaning of the 3.8 percent just looked at. Ms. McKeel said that is the
recommendation from Human Resources to stay on market. Ms. White said General Government has put
in two percent at a cost of $400,000. It would cost an additional $403,000 to do the 3.8 percent,
remembering that two percent is already built into the budget.
Ms. Thomas said nothing Ms. White showed would give additional money to the School System
over the original proposal. Ms. White said she was only showing what has been done in order to cover
some mandated costs in General Government. These are only approximate numbers.
Mr. Walker asked what each penny on the tax rate generates in revenues. Ms. White said it is
$800,000. Ms. Thomas said in the City it is only about $250,000 because the County gives them about four
cents on their tax rate. That is brand new money because the total Revenue Sharing is about $7.7 million
now. Mr. Rooker said the total amount of Revenue Sharing amounts to about 33 cents on the City's tax
rate.
Mr. Koleszar asked if the County is able to increase the car tax rate. Mr. Davis said the State only
pays based on what the rate was at the time the car tax bill was adopted. It gives the locality the option of
raising the rate, but the state makes no contribution toward that. One hundred percent of the increase
would be collected locally.
Ms. Thomas said a twenty percent increase in the real property tax rate would increase the tax rate
by 15 cents. The County would get half of that in the current fiscal year at what would be about 83 cents,
and the next year the County would collect the whole thing at 76 cents, and it would be as if it had been
raised to 91 cents. That is the dilemma the Board faces. Taxes have gone up significantly, and yet the
County is not seeing it in the revenues because of the fall in personal property taxes, and other taxes.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the Schools had any information to add.
Dr. Castner said the budget he presented to the School Board has a gap of approximately $1.9
million because of revenues from the County and the State. Because the County has recently adjusted
revenues, staff looked at the budget again, and the gap now stands at about $1.65 million. The School
Board is presently looking to see if there are things which could be reduced. In their budget, they stayed
with the goal of market for employees which have the teachers at 4.08 percent and classified employees at
3.8 percent. Also, the health care costs have been funded consistent with what was discussed at the last
joint meeting.
Mr. Rooker asked what one percent on teacher pay is, and what one percent on classified
employees is. Mr. Jackson Zimmerman said for teachers it is approximately $676,000, and on classified
employees approximately $241,000.
Mr. Dorrier asked if both boards are still working with the Commonality Policy concerning salaries.
Ms. McKeel said the School Board is still in the middle of its budget process. One of their work
sessions was snowed out, and they have two more work sessions scheduled. At this point, with what has
been said about the importance of market for their employees, one of their top priorities is salaries.
Mr. Dorrier asked Mr. Tucker to explain why revenues from personal property taxes dropped off so
much this year. Mr. Tucker said personal property had been growing at an aggressive rate. But, over the
last couple of years, it started to flatten out because new car sales and values did not increase that much.
Since 90 percent of the vehicles are considered to be used cars, and because used car sales are down,
values are flat. That provided a lower amount of revenue than had been projected 18 months ago.
Ms. White said on the average, new cars used to depreciate each year by about ten percent, but
year before last they depreciated 15 percent, and last year they depreciated almost 19 percent. The
depreciation rate on used car values, which is about 90 percent of the County's assessment value, almost
doubled in one year.
Mr. Boyd said no reserve funds were used to make up the shortfall. He asked if that was because
there are no longer any reserve funds. Ms. White said the Supervisors have about $100,000 in the Board's
Reserve Fund for next year. In the current year there is a projected savings of about $800,000.
Mr. Boyd said that in past years when the School Board has given the County budgets which
exceeded the amount of money originally "put on the table for us", the Supervisors have come up with more
money. It does not look like there is any money this year to give to the Schools. To follow up on the
question about commonality, it is his intent to fully support the increase in salary for the teachers and the
classified people at the rate they have put it in their budget even to the extent of making cuts in other parts
of the budget to accomplish that. That is his number one priority.
(February 12, 2003, Afternoon -Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 3)
Mr. Perkins said it must be kept in mind that when the salary studies started several years ago, it
was the understanding that there would be money to fund the recommended increases. Where is the
money going to come from without a tax increase?
Mr. Boyd said he would be willing to shift funds around in the School budget to meet that increase.
Mr. Perkins said the County may be in a tough position, but what about all the lay-offs and
foreclosures in the community, etc. Any job is better than no job, and that is what a lot of people in the
community are facing.
Mr. Bowerman said the universe of people most affected by the schools will then be in here howling
at the Board of Supervisors because the School Board has cut their programs. The Supervisors will be
asked to raise the taxes on the very people Mr. Perkins is talking about that have other problems with their
income. He does not know if it is realistic to ask for more in taxes.
Mr. Boyd said he is not suggesting that taxes be raised. He thinks the economy has already done
that with the reassessment.
Mr. Bowerman said the School Board will be creating unbelievable pressure on the Supervisors.
Mr. Boyd said he is willing to find the money in the Schools budget.
Mr. Rooker said the School Board shows that revenues from the County are expected to increase
by $2.7 million. The four percent increase to the teachers is about $2.5 million. The 3.8 percent for
classified employees is about another $900,000, so they would need to find about $700,000. Mr.
Bowerman said they would still be $1.6 million short. Mr. Rooker said cutting that budget may cut projected
increases in programs, but he does not think there would be a cut in an actual program.
Mr. Boyd said there are a number of new initiatives in the Schools budget.
Mr. Tucker said the $2.7 million mentioned by Mr. Rooker is only the increase in local funds. They
also have an $800,000 increase in State revenue while Local Government has a reduction of $700,000 in
State revenues.
Mr. Rooker said there was a question about whether the Schools would have to cut programs to
find that money, but the reality is that they have increased revenues of over $3.5 million. That will more
than pay for the entire pay raise for teachers and classified. Local Government is "in a different boat."
Mr. Perkins asked if there had been an update from WorldAtWork. Mr. Brandenburger said they
run that survey only once each year.
Ms. Suyes said the original survey by WorldAtWork showed that a 4.0+ percent adjustment was
needed, but they adjusted it down to 3.3 percent after September 11. Then, after the survey was rerun and
it ended up being 4.0+ percent as the survey had showed before September 11.
Mr. Boyd said that is the problem with mass statistics. They were only looking at the percent
increases, and not at how many jobs were lost. Mr. Rooker agreed. He thinks that the payroll for most
companies is no higher this year than it was the year before.
Ms. Suyes said that is one reason why Human Resources does not use just WorldAtWork data.
Mr. Koleszar said it should be remembered that the Schools employees are delivering better
performance than the market, so they should be compensated based on the job they are doing. The
people who are doing the excellent job should be rewarded.
Ms. Thomas said the County is turning into an urban government, but does unusual things to
protect the rural area. It is an unusual mix of things being required of County staff. She thinks the staff is
doing a good job, so when talking about salary it leaves people thinking that they are not appreciated.
Dr. Castner said the public schools in Virginia right now are more accountable than in the past
because every individual home is getting a report card. There is no other agency that has reached the point
of that report card. If they were not doing well, he thinks the public would be here saying so. He thinks the
accountability has worked in a positive way.
Ms. McKeel said the School Board members feel they are in the business of education and there is
no single thing that impacts the students in the classroom more than the quality of the teacher in the
classroom. They have established a priority for those teachers.
Mr. Dorrier said Mr. Martin could not be present today, because he had a meeting of DISC II. They
are revising the Neighborhood Model Plan, so Mr. Martin felt he should attend that meeting. He (Mr. Martin)
asked that Mr. Dorrier say he is not in favor of a tax rate increase. Mr. Dorrier said he is not personally in
favor of a tax rate increase either because there is such a large increase which has occurred through the
reassessment.
(February 12, 2003, Afternoon -Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 4)
Mr. Koleszar said the personal property tax could be changed, just as there has been an equivalent
increase in the rate of real estate, there has been the equivalent decrease in the personal property tax rate.
Mr. Rooker said he would not support changing the personal property tax rate. There were
promises made at the State level that car taxes would be eliminated. To piggyback on that now, and
essentially take away that tax decrease that people had been promised, would not be appropriate.
Mr. Tucker said the real purpose of this meeting today was to discuss the salary issue. He thinks it
is still the policy of the Boards, and staff will strive to meet market, hopefully, this next year, and continue to
try and meet market. At this time, based on expected revenues, a two-percent increase is being proposed
for Local Government employees. In order to do the additional 1.8 percent, he is suggesting that the
Supervisors consider doing so in January. He said that may be possible if an additional $300,000 can be
found during work sessions. If that is done, by June 30, 2004, market will have been met.
Mr. Walker asked if the real estate tax were raised by two cents, could that two cents be directed
toward a specific program. Mr. Tucker said he thinks it could be done. It would not have to tracked as to
where the revenues would go. There has been talk about doing something similar in the County in the way
of a fire district. If a penny were added to the rate, it could be set aside for that purpose.
Mr. Rooker said it is really just a moral obligation. Mr. Tucker said "yes." Mr. Rooker said it is
similar to the 60/40 policy for allocation of local revenues.
Ms. Thomas said the last time the rate was lowered was when the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority
was formed because there would be a revenue stream to take care of solid waste operations. Now, the
Landfill has closed, and there is no longer any revenue to support the expenses which are still there. The
homeowner in the County does not see a decrease in what they are paying. But, that money is now going
to BFI or Waste Management to use for landfills elsewhere. The County has a whole category of
expenditures which it has not had before. She has been saying for about nine months that in her mind that
might be the basis for adding a penny to the tax rate to be dedicated to solid waste operations. That is a
brand new expenditure the County has, and it has no revenue for that expenditure. So the money will have
to be taken away from other things people expect local government to provide.
Mr. Tucker said these are remediation costs the County will have to pay for the next 30 years.
These are unfunded mandates which the EPA has put on the County. The Landfill has to be maintained to
prevent any contamination from getting off site. It is very expensive.
Ms. Thomas said also it must be remembered that recycling does not pay for itself. Last year, it
was very obvious that citizens value that service. But, that is one thing staff has suggested be cut.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the Boards wanted to bring the Compensation recommendations to a close.
Mr. Boyd said he does not think anything was decided.
Mr. Rooker said he had not thought the Boards would be making any decisions today.
There was no further discussion at this time.
Agenda Item No. 3. Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the Board and School Board.
There were none.
Agenda Item No. 4. With no further business to come before the Joint Boards, the Board of
Supervisors recessed its meeting at 4:55 p.m, and then reconvened in Room 241 at 5:45 p.m. The Board
discussed the Statement for VDOT's Primary Road Plan Preallocation Hearing, which is actually Agenda
No. 8 on the agenda for later tonight. (Note: Mr. Martin was present at this time.)
Mr. Rooker suggested eliminating the fourth sentence of Paragraph lA which reads: "Others
remain unbuilt and the subject of great controversy and divisiveness in the community." Then further on in
that paragraph, he suggesting deleting the sentence which reads: "VDOT has previously programmed
construction of a Western Bypass." He said they have actually taken that out of the Six-Year Plan.
Mr. Martin said he thinks the statement sent for the Board's review is okay. He is glad to see the
sidewalks along Route 20, and the upgrade of Route 20 North as part of this statement.
Ms. Thomas noted the sentence reading: "The County has previously recommended
reestablishing funding for the design and ultimate construction for initial phases of widening of Route 29
from the South Fork Rivanna River to the North Fork Rivanna River and for intersection/interchange
upgrades to Hydraulic, Greenbrier and Rio Road intersections." She said the Board just talked about a
whole network of streets about a month ago. She asked if that language should be expanded.
Mr. Rooker said she is talking about the network of roads on the west side of Route 29, things
which are in the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Martin asked if Ms. Thomas wanted to make a statement regarding cooperation with VDOT.
(February 12, 2003, Afternoon -Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 5)
Ms. Thomas said she would like to mention the widening of Route 29 and developing a network of
parallel streets.
Mr. Tucker said he will have staff draft some language and send it to the Board members who can
then call back their suggestions.
Mr. Martin said this might be an appropriate time to ask for VDOT's cooperation in the County's
urban design for those streets.
Ms. Thomas said the Board might thank VDOT for the committee they have looking at urban roads
standards.
Mr. Tucker said staff will draft some language and get it out to the Board in a couple of days.
Ms. Thomas said Mr. Rooker had made a suggestion in an e-mail that the southern connector be
mentioned. Mr. Tucker said that is a secondary road, so the County should wait until discussion of
secondary roads.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff focused on the primary part of the plan. In this statement is a sentence
reading: "These and other Comprehensive Plan transportation system recommendations envision future
development to be served by a transportation network that provides a complete system of urban streets and
supports walking and biking and comprehensively links all land uses." Staff did not get into specifics of
changes in standards because that is being done as part of subdivision street standards. He said Mr.
Rooker had suggested removing the next to last sentence in Paragraph lA, but he thinks it would be better
to remove both that sentence and the one before it ("Future improvements in this Route 29 North corridor
area should be based on the results of the comprehensive study."). He said those were to be examples of
things which have already been done or funded.
Mr. Tucker said the Board wanted to mention the network of roads on the west side of Route 29 in
the Hollymead area but did not know where to include that language in this statement.
Mr. Cilimberg said it was referenced in Paragraph 1C, but because it will be subject to what is
looked at in the overall Route 29 study, staff did not make a direct reference to it, but it can go back in that
paragraph.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks it should be mentioned because development in that area is moving
ahead of any study that may be funded.
Ms. Thomas said there has been a traffic study completed which shows Route 29 if the Hollymead
development is done. The study was done by the developer's consultant. It has been seen by the Planning
Commission.
Agenda Item No. 5. Adjourn. At 5:59 p.m., the meeting which began at 4:00 p.m., was adjourned.
Chairman
Approved by the
Board of County
Supervisors
Date: 05/07/2003
Initials: EWC