Loading...
2000-03-15 Budget Work SessionMarch 15, 2000 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 1) An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on March 15, 2000, at 1:00 p.m., Room 235, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. This meeting was adjourned from March 13, 2000. PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Mr. Charles S. Martin, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Ms. Sally H. Thomas. ABSENT: Ms. Charlotte Y. Humphris. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Assistant County Executive, Roxanne W. White, Assistant County Executive, Thomas Foley, Budget Manager, Anne Gulati, County Attorney, Larry W. Davis, and Senior Deputy Clerk, Laurel Bentley. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 1:00 p.m., by the Chairman, Mr. Martin. _______________ Agenda Item No. 2. FY 2000/2001 OPERATING BUDGET WORK SESSION: School Budget "" Mr. Martin stated that the first item would be the presentation of the School Budget by Mr. Charles M. Ward, Chairman of the Albemarle County School Board. Mr. Ward formally submitted the School Board’s request for funding the FY 2000-2001 school system’s budget. He noted that the request totals $99,803,452 including $91,010,199 in the School Fund Budget and $8,793,253 in the Self-Sustaining Budget. The request requires approximately $1.9 million beyond the reasonable estimate of revenue believed to be ready in April. He added, though, that it now appears the State will meet the additional $400,000 that was anticipated and upon which the $1.9 million is predicated. The funding request separates growth-related needs totaling $978,230 into a separate category, since the School Board believes the cost of growth should be funded separately from the normal allocation of new revenue. He then highlighted some of the significant efficiencies and cost controls the school system has implemented as well as challenges which need to be resolved. He also discussed changes which have taken place during the last five years. He summarized the request by saying that by the year 2004 there are going to be over 120 school buses which will have to be replaced as well as a new elementary school that will be well on its way by 2002. The operating cost just to open this school will be approximately $750,000, and there is another school proposed for the 2000/2001 time frame. The School Board has also made a goal of meeting all of the Standards of Learning (SOL) in accreditation for all of the County schools by 2002. He said all of this is happening between 2000 and 2004 which is why there is a need for additional funds. (See formal funding request to the Board of Supervisors from the School Board received March 15, 2000.) Mr. Martin asked if Board members had questions. Ms. Thomas called attention to the sentence in the request indicating that the State will meet the additional $400,000. Mr. Ward responded that when the budget was first presented to the Board in January, Mr. Jackson Zimmerman, Director of Fiscal Services for the school system, had anticipated that there would be $400,000 additional funding coming from the State. However, it was not known for sure until 11:00 a.m. today. He stated that now the request for funding is for $1.9 million beyond the estimate of revenues instead of the previous amount of $2.3 million. Mr. Bowerman inquired as to the most up-to-date piece of information on which the Board of Supervisors should focus. Mr. Ward answered that the most up-to-date information is the $400,000 additional funding from the state. Mr. Bowerman asked if the Supervisors should focus on the County Executive’s summary of the entire process or a specific area within in the workbook. He wants to make sure that he is considering the most current information. Mr. Tucker stated that the Supervisors need to focus on the School Board’s most recent funding request. Mr. Dorrier mentioned the $1.9 million request, and he inquired if this funding will involve the general operating budget. Mr. Ward replied affirmatively. Mr. Dorrier next referred to Mr. Ward’s statement about the Self-Sustaining Budget totaling $8,793,253. However, Mr. Tucker had reported the figure to be $8.2 million. Mr. Tucker emphasized that the Supervisors should focus their attention on his budget. He pointed out that he is using pages from the School Board budget, and they can be found behind Tab 15, Pages N-8 and N-9. This is the School Board’s request. Mr. Dorrier asked again about the discrepancy in the Self-Sustaining Budget. Ms. Gulati answered that the correct number is $8.2 million. Mr. Dorrier mentioned the report by the Literacy Task Force on schools in southern Albemarle, and he asked if anything is included in the School Board budget to address these recommendations. Mr. Ward replied that an amount was included in the budget to have a summer school program. He said, though, there was no decision by the School Board to have the program specifically for schools in southern Albemarle County. He added that there are reading specialists and other components which have been put into this budget to address some of the Task Force concerns. March 15, 2000 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 2) Dr. Jean S. Murray, Assistant Superintendent for Instruction, stated that the Literacy Program support is included in the budget request at a figure of $223,000, and it is partially included in the extended learning time item. She noted that the original request for the Extended Learning Time was for the southern feeder schools at a cost of over $500,000. She said $100,000 went forward in the School Board’s request to the Board of Supervisors which is proposed to be used for extended learning time, but it is not specifically identified. The $223,000 for the Literacy Program Support includes program support for Grades K-12, specifically the elementary supplemental support program for Yancey and Scottsville initially. She said funds for planning and materials for Grades 6-12 as well as supplementary support materials for K-5 are also included. Mr. Dorrier said it sounds as though the Literacy Program is funded, but it is not funded to the extent expected for the southern schools. Dr. Murray agreed. She said some funding has been put in the budget, but it does not include the staffing recommendations made by the literacy specialist. Mr. Dorrier inquired as to how much more would be needed to fully fund the Literacy Program request. Dr. Murray said an additional $200,000 would be needed. Mr. Martin suggested that it would be helpful if the Superintendent would give a brief presentation on the School Board’s budget. Mr. Bowerman stated that now the School Board’s request is more accurate since it includes the $400,000 funding from the State. Mr. Tucker said the School Board’s budget reflected the anticipated amount from the State, and his budget did not. Dr. Castner asked the Board of Supervisors to turn to A-5 which is the Summary of the School Board’s funding request. The School Board members did a straw vote in deciding on requests totaling $1.9 million which is where the gap is currently. He emphasized that the School Board members had to choose from requests totaling $7.1 million, but they reserved the right of that judgment until April when they know the exact bottom line of the budget. He said the $1.9 million is almost two sevenths of what they were considering which includes the competition between the following items: summer school; textbooks; and the emergency class size issue, when a class gets over 25 students. The School Board members tried to use a degree of fiscal responsibility in narrowing that number by deciding what this school system needed additionally to go into next year. The one thing they kept as a priority was compensation, but these other issues competed with that. Mr. Bowerman asked Dr. Castner to talk specifically about the $7.1 million requests. Dr. Castner said the $1.9 million will fund a portion of the $7.1 million, and the School Board members have already made a strong case for the priorities by their straw vote. They wanted to put some money in the summer school program, and they wanted to fund the growth. He stated that some of the mandates were involved in their decision as well as some improvements. He does not believe the School Board members are in a position now to point out exactly what the $1.9 million is going to fund. However, they indicated that there are a lot more items they would like to see funded, but at that time, there was a consensus vote on budget items that amounted to $1.9 million, and that is where they stopped. Mr. Tucker noted that the $1.9 million reflects the School Board’s priority list. Ms. Susan Gallion, Vice-Chair of the Albemarle County School Board, reported that $972,000 of the $1.9 million are growth costs alone. Mr. Bowerman referred to the School Board’s adopted budget last year and the list of unfunded priorities. He asked if this request funds everything, or is there a list of items it does not fund. Mr. Ward stated that the School Board did not forward the list of unfunded priorities to the Board of Supervisors because there was not a consensus of the Board. He said, though, it was shown in the Superintendent’s report on unfunded needs. Mr. Bowerman said the $1.9 million is two-sevenths of the number the Superintendent has identified as unfunded priorities. Ms. Thomas commented that she compared the Superintendent’s unfunded priorities to the School Board’s list of priorities. She said there are a total of 40 items, and 11 of them got funding in the School Board’s budget, although some of them did not get full funding. She stated that everything on the Superintendent’s first level of priorities was funded, as well as 11 of the things on the Superintendent’s second and third levels. She said, though, this was not supposed to be taken as a certainty since the School Board’s April budget may be different, and there is no line item detail. Mr. Dorrier mentioned that the projected carry-over funds were more than $400,000. Mr. Tucker pointed out that these are not recurring funds. Mr. Dorrier next referred to non-recurring funds of $1.9 million. Mr. Zimmerman replied that all of the items included in the $1.9 million are recurring. Mr. Dorrier inquired about the reserve funds. Mr. Tucker replied that the Board of Supervisors’ reserve is approximately $92,000, and the School Board has a $50,000 reserve. Mr. Ward said he believes there is some confusion. He explained that the $400,000 the State funded is above and beyond the amount known when the budget was prepared. He asked Mr. Zimmerman to clarify the $400,000. Mr. Zimmerman stated that Mr. Tucker’s original budget was based upon no additional state revenues at that time. As of this morning, the Department of Education provided the County with March 15, 2000 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 3) information detailing the General Assembly’s decision. He said there are approximately $400,000 additional funds for the school division that is equivalent to the amount upon which the School Board’s budget was predicated. Mr. Martin asked if any of this money is earmarked for teachers’ salaries or capital needs. Mr. Zimmerman replied that there was no money allocated specifically for capital needs. However, there was some additional funding for teachers’ salaries. Dr. Castner referred to Page A-5 which represents the straw vote by a majority of the School Board. He said if the school system does not receive the requested $1.9 million, the School Board will have to eliminate projects. He stated that if none of this request is funded, then nothing on the list will happen. If some of the funding is allocated, then the School Board will prioritize on that amount. Ms. Gallion asked if it is true that the County Executive’s proposed budget is earmarked for 57 percent of the total budget. Mr. Tucker said this is correct for the operations portion. He stated that when the capital and self-sustaining funding is added, it goes to approximately 67 percent. Ms. Gallion asked if any of the additional revenue would be predicated on the 67 percent. Mr. Tucker responded affirmatively. Ms. Thomas mentioned a newspaper report indicating that the Governor’s School is not as expensive as was first thought, as well as the classified health initiative for LPNs. She wondered if there are any items that may not need as much funding as requested. Mr. Ward replied that he does not think there will be any reduction in the funding. The Governor’s School will probably be more than was budgeted, and the LPN initiative has not been accounted for either way. Ms. Thomas asked if Albemarle County is the only division in the State of Virginia that doesn’t classify LPNs in this way. Ms. Gallion answered affirmatively. Mr. Dorrier referred to a report that funding of teachers salaries would require an extra $200,000. Mr. Zimmerman said he thought it would probably be around $400,000. Mr. Dorrier asked why the amount was reduced. Dr. Castner stated that it was reduced because school officials thought it was prudent to phase salary adjustments in and to have them remain close to salaries in Charlottesville and Fluvanna. Mr. Dorrier asked about teacher recruitment for this year as compared to last year. Dr. Castner said school officials have been very aggressive this year. He stated that a job fair was started in February. Albemarle County has never tried to access the market this early before. He said visiting structures have been changed in addition to working on the teachers’ pay scale. He added that school officials are finding out that the school system’s pay scale is at best just keeping up with what has been in place in the past. Mr. Ward noted that new contracts have been offered this year. Dr. Morgan said 36 early contracts have been offered and 14 have come back. He stated that County officials are going to try to offer 60 contracts by the first of May. This was done after the job fair held here, and some major work was done at the job fair at UVa. Mr. Dorrier asked if the old pay scale is being shown to applicants. Dr. Morgan said the proposed scale is being shown, but it is being noted that it is not a final scale. Mr. Martin suggested adding the $1.9 million funding request to the list for further discussion. He asked if the Supervisors have questions they would like to have answered before this matter is discussed in their meeting on Monday. He also asked if the School Board members had any additional information on this matter they would like for the Supervisors to hear before the discussion. Mr. Perkins mentioned that the Board of Supervisors and the School Board both have to deal with population growth. They are in this situation together. Mr. Bowerman stated that the County officials have no control over population growth. Mr. Ward remarked that the Comprehensive Plan has such control. Mr. Bowerman said there are a lot of things involved. Mr. Perkins commented that he does not think items can be separated into different categories. The only money the School Board is guaranteed is the money coming from the State, and that is not always guaranteed. He added that the money the school system gets locally is what the Board of Supervisors decides to allocate to it. He said it is really hard to make assumptions that the School Board will be responsible for certain things, and the Board of Supervisors will be responsible for others. He emphasized that the School Board can’t be responsible for anything, since it is not guaranteed funding. Mr. Ward pointed out that the School Board is responsible to see that the Standards of Quality are met. Mr. Perkins said a lot of assumptions are being made. He asked if there are any efficiencies in the budget situation from last year that can be addressed. He then inquired about teachers who are teaching three classes a day, but are being paid full-time salaries. Mr. Ward asked Mr. Perkins to identify the areas, and school officials would examine the situation. Mr. Perkins commented that the whole staffing scheme needs to be examined. Mr. Ward said this has been done. Mr. Perkins stated that he has previously asked for reports. He would like to see a list of teachers, how many students they teach, as well as what they teach, and he has never been able to get such a list. Mr. Ward wondered if Mr. Perkins has asked this particular School Board recently. Mr. Perkins replied that he asked for the list two years ago. Mr. Ward said, if this is something the staff can do by the next Board meeting, the information will be forthcoming at that time. Mr. Martin asked if there were any more questions for the School Board. Ms. Thomas stated that she felt as though she needed to know what each of the line items involved, so she spent some time with members of the school staff. She appreciates them spending that March 15, 2000 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 4) time with her, and she feels as though she has had her questions answered. Dr. Castner noted that the report requested by Mr. Perkins involves 1,000 teachers and 12,000 students. Mr. Perkins said he thinks this is important information. Dr. Castner stated that he hopes Mr. Perkins would trust that this school system and School Board are fiscally responsible. The information can be provided, but he hopes Mr. Perkins would have some confidence in the school staff and School Board. He then referred to Mr. Perkins’ remark about teachers who were not full-time being paid full-time wages. He told Mr. Perkins that if school officials are not doing something they should be doing, he wants to know what it is, so he can correct it. Mr. Perkins stated that Dr. Castner has identified the problem by saying there are 1,000 teachers and 12,000 students. He pointed out that this is a one to twelve student/teacher ratio. Dr. Castner said the information he just reported involves special education teachers, and full-time equivalents, etc. He can show Mr. Perkins this information, and he wants to be able to show it to him. He said it is not as simple as it appears, and dividing the number of students into the number of teachers is oversimplification and lacks common sense. Mr. Perkins remarked that the report can be done on a school by school basis. This type of information should be available by calling each principal in the schools. Mr. Martin stated that this debate does not need to continue. He said Mr. Perkins has asked a question to which he feels he needs an answer in order to make a decision. He added that the school system can either provide the information if possible, or it may not be able to provide it to Mr. Perkins. He asked if there was any other information the Supervisors would like to request from the School Board. He reiterated that he is asking for the extra funding request to be added to the list for further discussion. Mr. Bowerman concurred with Mr. Martin’s suggestion that the extra funding request be added to the list for discussion. Mr. Dorrier requested more information about the Literacy Task Force. He would like to see if there is any way this item could be put into the budget in place of something else. He went on to say the Literacy Task Force provides the basis for the success of the SOLs, because if people do not have basic literacy, they will be unable to pass the SOLs. He added that it is a Countywide Task Force, and if its recommendations are not fully funded, then County officials are not doing their best to meet the SOLs. Mr. Bowerman stated that he wants to consider what the School Board has presented to the Board of Supervisors, recognizing that when April arrives, some of the money can be switched around and the Literacy Task Force recommendations could possibly be fully funded. He said, though, he does not want to consider the School Board budget’s line items. Mr. Martin stated that Mr. Dorrier is strongly recommending and suggesting that the Literacy Task Force recommendations be fully funded which is all the Supervisors can do. The question is whether the Board of Supervisors is willing to add more money to the School Board budget. He stated that then the School Board will decide whether or not Mr. Dorrier’s suggestion will be met. Mr. Ward said the School Board members have already had a lengthy discussion of this item, but he will mention Mr. Dorrier’s concerns. Mr. Dorrier remarked that he will not refer to any more line items for discussion, but he is particularly interested in the literacy recommendations. Mr. Ward stated that some very competent people are examining some very good ideas about helping students with literacy. He commented that one of the consistent priorities of the School Board members is to provide literacy, and they understand that need. Ms. Gallion explained that the Literacy Task Force situation wraps around a lot of issues. She said one of the issues relates to how many students teachers teach which relates to the growth figures that school officials have provided. She stated that if the number of people increase in these classes, there will be a decrease in the desired outcome. There are some recommendations included which are intertwined with different budgetary line items, so it is very difficult to say there is one line item that specifically addresses every issue in the report. She added that there are many line items in the School Board budget that will address this matter. Mr. Dorrier stated that he meets with certain principals who tell him that teacher effectiveness is going to decrease because certain things are eliminated by the School Board in the budget. This makes him have less confidence in the proposals. He added, though, that the school officials are the people who should know about the needs. His concern is about how unmet literacy needs will affect the SOLs. Ms. Gallion commented that she appreciates the fact that Mr. Dorrier has talked with the principals. The literacy recommendations are not all eliminated at this point, but they will be phased in, and it is a goal. She stated that all of the recommendations are great, but there are limited funds, and just about everything has to be phased in within the school system. She explained that the Gifted Program is still being phased in, and that was started four years ago. Ms. Thomas said parents and principals complain about the number of positions decreasing from year to year. She then asked if the Board of Supervisors should fund the entire School Board request, would there be any school that would have fewer positions next year than it has this year. Ms. Gallion replied that it depends on growth. Ms. Thomas said the positions the request indicates that are needed for growth will be funded if this request is met. Dr. Castner indicated that whether or not a school will lose positions will depend on growth March 15, 2000 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 5) at a particular school. Ms. Gallion said some schools may experience a decline in growth, so they will lose portions of a position or positions. Dr. Morgan stated that he can clarify Mr. Dorrier’s and Ms. Thomas’ questions, and he thinks they hinge on the growth positions. He referred to Mr. Dorrier’s comment about talking to principals in his district, and he said he is glad he talked with them. He commented that the issue the principals have raised is because the budget is uncertain until it is finished. He explained that there are certain contractual obligations that have to be fulfilled by State Law, so the school officials direct the principals to do their preliminary staffing based on no growth positions in the budget. Therefore, there are adjustments because of enrollments, etc., which cause some schools to lose one-half or three-quarters of a position. He said if the School Board’s request is funded, and the 12.28 positions are included, these issues should be gone. There are also some other things recommended by the Literacy Task Force, but the crux of the issue relates to growth positions. He added that Ms. Thomas’ question had to do with growth positions if that portion of the School Board’s request was funded. He said if nobody loses enrollment, the schools should have a better situation. Mr. Dorrier stated that growth can’t be predicted until next September. Dr. Morgan responded that there is an estimate available now, and the only place that is volatile is the urban ring. He said enrollment projections for the schools in the southern part of the County are fairly good because that is not a volatile area as far as enrollment is concerned. He emphasized that the growth positions have caused the most problems. Mr. Martin remarked that last year and the year before there was a big reduction in Teacher Assistants (TA’s) at the elementary level. He asked the Superintendent if the TA’s could be put back at Hollymead if funding was received. However, he was told that the money could not be set aside for that situation. Dr. Morgan indicated that TA time for K-1 has been included in the School Board’s request, and this is tied to the Literacy Task Force recommendations. He said that is where there is the most concern, and he agreed with Ms. Gallion’s remarks that there are a lot of Literacy Task Force positions embedded in the different items. Mr. Ward noted that the differentiated funding formula has now stabilized, and if the total School Board budget is funded, money has been included to address emergency situations for individual large classes. Ms. Thomas referred to Page I-15 showing the proposed staffing allocations. She mentioned that the shaded portion includes four positions involving literacy and K-1, as well as TA’s. She asked if these positions are the positions being discussed currently. Dr. Morgan replied affirmatively. Mr. Bowerman complimented the School Board members about the way they developed the budget this year. He said from what he understands, they had a lot of discussion, as well as a lot of input, and tough decisions were made. It is important for him to understand, as well as members of the public, that even if the $1.9 million is entirely funded, it might not go entirely for the things being discussed. He noted that School Board members reserve the right to be able to look back at the Superintendent’s recommendations, plus changes that might occur during the next four or five months, and adjust the money as needed in the different areas. Mr. Dorrier inquired as to whether or not there will be another joint meeting with the School Board on the budget. Mr. Martin said he would check into this matter. ____________ Ms. Thomas distributed a report showing what happens if the tax rate is increased. She said to get an average tax bill, all of the revenues that are received are divided by the number of taxpayers. However, she asked the Finance Office to show her how it actually breaks down on a tax payment. She emphasized, though, that this is only a partial answer. These figures represent tax parcels instead of taxpayers, and they are by property rather than by taxpayer. The figures are divided into quartiles which means that the lowest one-fourth of the tax parcel bill averages $148.00. The second quartile averages $590, and it is not until the third quartile is reached that there is a tax bill over $1,000. Yet, the average tax bill is $1,200. She stated that at the very top there are some people with a tax bill in excess of $3,000. She pointed out the bottom line if there is a five cents increase in the tax rate. The Assessor’s Office wanted to make sure that Board members realize there will be a reassessment next year. She explained that no one knows for certain what the reassessment will be, but it may be somewhere between seven and ten percent. She commented that since reassessment will come in the middle of next year, she increased everybody’s property value by four percent for this report. She noted that this is hypothetical, because not everybody’s property value will increase four percent. However, on average this is what will happen to everybody’s property, and that makes each penny slightly more expensive. She pointed out that each penny the tax rate is increased raises the average tax bill $17, but for the lower two quartiles, the increase would be from $2.00 to $9.00. Mr. Dorrier inquired about the total amount of income after six months relative to the reassessment. Ms. Thomas said she does not have this figure, but she can work it out for him. She then explained that the quartiles are not quarters of the year. The lowest quartile depict property values that are of lowest value. Mr. Bowerman pointed out that with the Governor’s no car tax as long as they live up to their commitment, it is really a regressive tax. He said Ms. Thomas is making the point that there is a differential effect dollar wise on different values of property. He stated that when a person has lived in the County all of their life, and their property is valued at $110,000, their actual tax increase per dollar for a five cents March 15, 2000 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 6) increase is different than somebody who lives in Hollymead or Glenmore. He remarked that is what this is showing by quartile, the different effects you would go through. It is regressive in terms of the way it is applied, and the effect on people is regressive in that it is all equal, but the dollars are different between quartiles. Mr. Martin commented that there is a lot of discussion about differentiating between taxpayers because of age, since after a certain age, people can be given a tax break. It is hoped something can be done to differentiate further for people who have lived in the area longer or because of their income. He stated that now it cannot be done, so when an increase is approved, people who can afford it are not the only ones who are being taxed. He said people who cannot afford it will have their taxes increased also. He believes Ms. Thomas is trying to make the point that the biggest tax burden falls to the people with the higher incomes. Ms. Thomas pointed out that the biggest tax burden hits people with the most land and income. Mr. Bowerman said he appreciated Ms. Thomas’ analysis. Mr. Dorrier complimented School Board members on how they handled the death of Holly Nash, a student killed in an automobile accident the past weekend. Mr. Bowerman also thanked the School Board members for the way they handled the recent tragedy at Albemarle High School. (The Board of Supervisors took a break at 2:30 p.m. and reconvened at 2:33 p.m.) ____________ Capital Improvements Program "" Ms. Gulati discussed the CIP while she presented slides. She pointed out that the School section of the pie chart is 46 percent of the CIP and totals $3,202,000. She noted that the Administration section totals approximately $800,000; Public Safety is around $360,000; Highways and Transportation is just over $500,000; Human Development is a new section involving two percent of the pie chart, and it includes CALAS and Region Ten capital requests; the Library section is over $80,000; Parks and Recreation totals approximately $300,000; the ACE Program is at $1,000,000; Utility Improvements total $80,000 for the Keene Landfill Closure; Tourism is at approximately $75,000; and Stormwater is at $400,000. She mentioned again that School projects total $3,202,000, and General Government Projects involve $3,265,000. She said Tourism Projects total $75,000 and Stormwater Projects are at $423,000. She explained to Board members that the CIP projects for FY 2000/01 are all described on P-16 of the Operating Budget. She would be happy to give specific information on these projects or answer questions. She then mentioned the General Government Projects relating to FY 2000/01, which are as follows: County Computer Upgrade, which is an ongoing project at $170,000; beginning costs of $150,000 for the Court Renovations; Maintenance and Replacement at the County Facilities, Court Square and J & D Court totaling $465,000; $360,000 for the temporary fire and rescue station in the southern portion of the County; and $400,000 for Revenue Sharing; Mr. Bowerman called attention to the Fire and Rescue item. He said initially there was a discussion about an immediate need for a facility. He stated, though, that the $360,000 is for the first part of the permanent construction, and there is no temporary facility. Next, Ms. Gulati referred to the requests from Charlottesville-Albemarle Legal Aid Society (CALAS) and Region Ten, which came to the Supervisors in a previous Executive Summary. She mentioned that CALAS has asked for $55,000, which is the entire request to the County toward a $1.0 million building. There is also $50,000 recommended over a five year period to fully fund Region Ten’s $250,000 request for three new capital facilities for its operations. The projects also include $20,000 of planning money for a New Library Facilities Study. Other projects are as follows: Computer Upgrade at the Library; Maintenance and Replacement at the Library; Funding for Athletic Field Development at the Crozet Park; the second of two contributions to the PVCC Facility Renovation; Improvements at the Scottsville Community Center; Park Development in the southern Albemarle area; Walnut Creek Park Improvements; Parks Maintenance and Replacement; $1.0 million for the ACE Program which consists of $650,000 from the Fund Balance and $350,000 from Tourism funds; and the Keene Landfill Closure at $80,000. The Tourism Fund Projects include the Paramount Theater at $50,000. Mr. Martin inquired if the recommendation is to appropriate $50,000 to the Paramount Theater for four years. Ms. Gulati answered that the request was for $500,000, but the recommendation is for less than that amount. This $50,000 recommendation represents the first fiscal year. Mr. Tucker said the request from the Paramount Theater to the City was for $750,000, and City officials are allocating two-thirds of that amount. The County is making a similar contribution. Ms. Gulati continued with the presentation by saying that stormwater projects involve $422,977 for stormwater control, and school projects are funded at $3,201,640. She pointed out that there are approximately $1,710,000 in unfunded school requests Next, Ms. Gulati stated that the projects on the previous slides reflect the changes to the Technical Committee’s version of the CIP. She discussed a change which adds $1.0 million per year for the ACE Program in FY-01 and FY-02. The following new projects were also added: $55,000 to fully fund CALAS’ capital request, and it is funded with the General Fund Balance; $250,000 over five years at $50,000 to fully March 15, 2000 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 7) fund Region Ten’s capital request which totaled $250,000; and $50,000 a year from the Tourism Fund for a total of $330,000 for the Paramount Theater request. She referred to Mr. Tucker’s remark that the City is funding $500,000 of its $750,000 request, and the County’s recommendation is to fund a similar percentage which is 66 percent. This is based also on the fact that the request from the Paramount Theater is a significant amount to come from the Tourism Fund. Mr. Martin remarked that he would like to include the Paramount request on the list for further discussion as far as the amount of contribution is concerned. Mr. Tucker pointed out that CALAS and Region Ten also had significant requests. He asked Board members to let the staff know if there is something they want to discuss, so the items can be pulled for Monday’s meeting. Mr. Martin stated that CALAS, Region Ten and the Paramount Theater be added to the list to be discussed. Mr. Dorrier commented that more data is needed on the Paramount Theater because a lot of changes are being made. Mr. Martin said Paramount representatives can be requested to be at Monday’s meeting briefly if Board members think this is necessary, or a written summary would probably be sufficient. Ms. Gulati noted that the CIP also reflects the removal of the $1.7 million transfer from the General Fund for E-911 related capital projects. These funds have been re-allocated within the FY-01 Operating Budget to fund operational costs of the new Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) system. Ms. Thomas asked for more explanation of this item. Ms. Gulati explained that there was a transfer of $300,000 a year programmed from the General Fund toward E-911 related capital projects or operating costs associated with capital projects. She said because it is an ongoing source of funding, it is a good source for maintenance and the operations for these projects. The capital costs of these projects are being funded largely through the Fund Balance. Mr. Gulati then pointed out that the recommendations also reflect changes to the Northern Elementary School. The overall costs of the school project have been reduced by $750,000 reflecting revised estimates of land costs. She said $9.5 million in construction costs is deferred from FY-01 to FY-02 due to delays in land acquisition, and an additional $1.5 million has been retained in FY-01 for site work and land purchase. Ms. Thomas asked for a further explanation about the reduction in costs for Northern Elementary School. Ms. Gulati replied that the reduction in costs is based on information from the school division. The school officials had requested $11.7 million for the Northern Elementary project, which is actually $1.7 million more than had been previously approved for the project. They are now saying they no longer need the $1.7 million, but instead, they need only $980,000 based on the estimate of the land costs. She said Mr. Al Reaser, Director of Building Services for the school system, is present to speak to this matter. Mr. Reaser remarked that when the request was submitted last summer, it was based on where school representatives were in their negotiations. They were anticipating additional costs of approximately $1.5 million. He said at their current point in negotiations, it is believed that half of that amount would be all that is needed. Mr. Perkins inquired as to the cost per square foot for the Northern Elementary School. Mr. Reaser answered that it is approximately $120 per square foot. Mr. Bowerman asked if this estimate is without tables and chairs. Mr. Reaser answered affirmatively. The estimate includes site, land and installation costs. Ms. Gulati indicated that the CIP proposes to fund the additional amount the school system is requesting in project expenses, over and above approved bond revenues of $10.04 million, with additional VPSA bonds. She noted that the debt service would be funded with some of the savings realized from deferring construction of that project for one year. Ms. Thomas inquired if this will make the debt maximum higher than the County’s policy even with this deferral. Ms. Gulati replied that overall the amount being bonded is increasing, but the maximums are not reached until 2002 or 2003. The County may be over some of the maximums with certain projects as a result of the General Obligation Bonds, as well as some of the school division projects. Ms. Gulati continued with discussing the changes to the Technical Committee CIP. The recommendation is to defer $1.4 million for construction for the Burley addition/renovation from FY-01 to FY-02, due to delays in initiating the project. She said $597,000 is being moved forward to FY-01 to complete chiller replacements at Greer and Albemarle High School, as well as the installation of telephones in the classrooms in the elementary schools at a cost of $572,000. She mentioned that there is also $25,000 pushed forward from FY-03 for telephone system installation. Mr. Dorrier inquired if a chiller is an air conditioner or a refrigerator. Mr. Reaser replied that it is the main cooling plant for a building. He explained that it is called a chiller because it chills water, and the water goes throughout the building. March 15, 2000 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 8) Mr. Bowerman asked if ice is used anywhere in the school system. Mr. Reaser answered that ice is being used at Monticello High School and Sutherland Middle School. He went on to say that $11,000,000 in projects were deferred in order to afford the Northern Elementary school. These chillers were deferred, because school officials thought they could keep them running three more years. However, one of them is unable to last for that length of time. Mr. Bowerman wondered if the chiller is going to be replaced with state of the art efficiency. Mr. Reaser responded affirmatively. He next explained about the installation of telephones in the classrooms in the elementary schools. This is being done because of the safety audit concerning two way communication between classrooms and the school office. Mr. Bowerman asked if the telephones are wired or wireless. Mr. Reaser answered that they are hard wired. Ms. Gulati said as a result of these changes that have been made to the Technical Committee’s recommendations there is a proposed CIP totaling $6,964,000 for FY 01, and over the five year period it totals $85,970,000. She next mentioned a few projects to be included at a later date to the CIP, which will be coming to the Supervisors in a separate action later this month. The CAD project is one of these, and it is a multi-jurisdictional Computer Aided Dispatch system for dispatching 911 and non-emergency calls for police, fire and rescue services. She added that the total cost of this project is estimated to be a little less than $2,000,000 of which the County’s share is 43.29 percent or $880,000. This amount is being projected to be funded completely from Fund Balance monies which have been set aside for this project from the CIP and from the E-911 Fund. The County’s share of the ongoing operating costs of CAD will be $137,230. She pointed out that part of this has already been seen in the FY-01 Operating Budget. She said another project that will be coming to this Board for its final approval is the 800 Mhz regional communication project which is a multi-jurisdictional 20 channel Analog/Digital Simulcast Trunked Radio System linking public safety agencies in the City, County, UVA and the Airport. She mentioned that the total cost of this project is $13,370,000, and the County’s portion is slightly over half of this amount at $6.8 million. She stated that it is proposed that the County’s share be funded with $4,710,000 in borrowed funds for infrastructure, which will most likely take the form of a financial arrangement with a vendor. She noted that E-911 Fund Balance monies have also been set aside for this project to purchase radios and to take care of other associated costs. Mr. Bowerman asked if the contract associated with a vendor will be a binding contract for future Boards of Supervisors. Mr. Davis answered that it is a lease purchase agreement with a non-appropriation clause in it. He said, though, it would be very difficult for future Boards not to fund the project. Mr. Bowerman stated that he wanted to make sure the project is presented to the public in the proper way. Ms. Gulati noted that the County’s share of annual maintenance for the 800 Mhz system is $250,000. She went on to say that some of the issues to be addressed with the Financial Adviser is the funding for unfunded General Government and School Projects including $10.6 million in General Government and Stormwater Projects; $4.9 million for Differentiated Staffing/Capacity Formula Change and the impact of Capacity Change on school facility needs over the next ten years. The Financial Adviser will also address the $3.1 million in school growth related capital costs and $5.3 million in other unfunded school projects, as well as additional resources needed for land banking for the school facilities. The Financial Adviser and the Board will also be addressing the funding for the Stormwater Program and how stormwater might best be handled in the County. The Financial Adviser will be addressing the County Debt Capacity and affordable capital budgets as well as appropriate and feasible financing mechanisms for long- term capital needs. Ms. Thomas inquired if the Financial Adviser has been hired and is on the job. Mr. Tucker answered affirmatively. Mr. Martin called attention to the $150,000 for Juvenile and Domestic Court maintenance and repair. He noted that this money is really for Juvenile, General District and Circuit Courts. He asked if the funding will be used for beginning research for the bigger project. Ms. White responded that this funding begins some of the architectural designs, and the Juvenile Court will probably be the first facility affected. Mr. Perkins inquired about the status of the General Assembly bill relating to lottery funds for school construction. Mr. Tucker answered that he understands the bill that was passed relates to a referendum by the State to shift the lottery funds for schools only. He stated that he is unsure, though, whether the funds would be used just for capital projects or if they could also be used for operations. Mr. Davis remarked that the bill will require a second passage by the General Assembly. He said he believes 50 percent of the funds can be used for capital costs, 50 percent for operating costs, 50 percent for non- recurring costs and 50 percent for recurring costs. Mr. Bowerman asked if the legislators feel they need to go back to the public with this issue. Mr. Davis responded that the funds cannot be dedicated to the General Fund of the Commonwealth. Ms. Thomas noted that if the bill has to be approved by two separate General Assemblies, it won’t be effective until two more years. Mr. Dorrier referred to the $20,000 appropriated for the new Library Facilities Study. He suggested that a Library Board representative explain what this $20,000 will produce and whether or not the Earlysville project is being considered. He stated that before this item is funded, he thinks there should be some feedback. Mr. Tucker said there is more information on this item in the CIP in terms of the detail of the study. He added that the Library Director could be asked to attend a meeting of the Board of Supervisors, if necessary. Ms. White clarified that the Library Board requested $20,000 for a study. However, the County had already programmed $20,000 in the CIP for a study on potential sites to see the feasibility of all the different March 15, 2000 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 9) ideas being proposed. She said only very preliminary work has been done now by the Library staff and County staff. Mr. Dorrier stated that if $20,000 is going to be spent on a study, he thinks the request of the Earlysville residents should at least be considered. He said he is not saying whether or not it should be funded, but it should be studied. Mr. Perkins mentioned that he had gotten a letter from the Earlysville residents stating that they have been to the Library Board, and the Library Board indicated that it is the Board of Supervisors’ ultimate decision to decide where the branch libraries will be located. He said not knowing exactly what is needed, he thinks it is important to examine the sort of facilities that are needed and desired. Mr. Tucker stated that this analysis is going to do that. However, no sites have been identified, yet. Ms. White noted that the feasibility of smaller types of libraries will be considered as well as how to design a library for a very small area. Mr. Dorrier said he does not think the consultant should be given the freedom to do whatever he wants to do, and he thinks there should be some parameters. He stated that he would be glad to help with the development of this study. Mr. Tucker pointed out that this is a land use decision, and there are land use implications when consideration is given to locating facilities outside of growth areas. He emphasized that it is a change from the County’s Land Use Policy. He said if the Board members choose to do so, that is fine, but it should be a conscious decision. Mr. Martin commented that he believes Mr. Dorrier is indicating that he does not want to fund the study without making sure areas such as Earlysville are included in the study as possibilities. Mr. Dorrier concurred that this is what he is saying. He stated that with so many people in the Earlysville area clamoring for a library, the study should at least consider their desires. Mr. Martin remarked that the study will do that. Mr. Bowerman concurred with Mr. Tucker’s statement that such a decision would have major land use considerations. Mr. Perkins said he has always thought it would be good to have libraries located on school sites. He added that although a school library should not be a community library, the same site could be used. He noted that people are used to coming to a school site, so it would be convenient to have a library there, also. Ms. Thomas recalled that when plans for Monticello High School were being considered, there was a citizens committee that studied such combinations. She said an expert on these types of issues brought forward some good information. She agreed, though, that it is a land use issue. Mr. Foley wondered if the Board members are saying they do not want to limit full service libraries to the growth areas. Ms. Thomas said this decision has not yet been made. Mr. Bowerman concurred that it would imply a level of service to the rural areas that is not implicit in the County’s Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Foley stated that he asked the question because the consultant who will do the work will depend on this initial direction, and the cost of the study will vary depending on how wide a range has to be evaluated. Ms. Thomas suggested that the consultant be advised about the strong interest in the Earlysville area for library service. She said there are all sorts of ways to approach library services for these small areas. Mr. Bowerman pointed out that Ivy also has a high density of population, but it is not a growth area, and there are land use implications. There are such locations in the County where there are a lot of population whether or not County officials want it there. He said there may be some way to satisfy the need, even though it is not in a growth area. Mr. Dorrier commented that it appears Mr. Foley is saying that the Request for Proposal (RFP) should probably be limited to the growth areas unless the Board wants to expand it. He said a decision has to be made about the whole concept of libraries. Mr. Bowerman pointed out that it is uncertain where a school will be located 15 years from now. Mr. Dorrier said there are quite a few issues, but he does not think libraries can be limited just to growth areas. Mr. Foley referred to Ms. Thomas’ comment about services for small areas. He said if the consultant is given this direction, different types of libraries for different areas can be examined. He stated it will be an expanse of the study, but it won’t be limited to large facilities. Mr. Tucker agreed with Ms. Thomas that considering a different format of providing library service to certain areas is a good course to follow. March 15, 2000 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 10) Mr. Dorrier remarked that since the Library Board members are sending the issue back to the Board of Supervisors, it must mean they want some guidance. Mr. Tucker explained that the Library Board is examining library services in the northern corridor, but the County staff is focusing more in the growth areas in the Forest Lakes and Airport Road area. The RFP relates more to the scope of the services in that area. However, it can be expanded to consider library services in other areas such as Ivy and Earlysville, but not necessarily a brick and mortar building. Ms. Thomas stated that she can support using technology to help with library services in rural areas, but it will be a long time before she will support a library in rural areas. Mr. Martin asked if the Board members want to keep the scope of the RFP the same, but include examination of library services in the larger centers of the rural area. He mentioned that the focus should not just be on Earlysville. He said it should be on the higher population areas in the rural areas. Mr. Dorrier stated that he liked Mr. Perkins’ comment about using school sites for libraries. He said he thinks this situation should also be examined. Mr. Perkins commented that he thinks the study should involve consideration of what a library should be like in the 21st Century. Mr. Bowerman concurred. Mr. Perkins suggested that perhaps the libraries and schools could develop a program where libraries in the elementary schools would be open on Saturdays. He said a library staff person could be at the library on Saturdays to offer different programs to the public. Mr. Foley indicated that he had enough direction to proceed with the RFP. Next, Ms. Thomas mentioned that she is concerned about funding items for Burley when it is uncertain how Burley will be used in the future. Mr. Tucker said this is part of the space situation which has already been discussed with the Board, and he is comfortable with the situation. He noted that the staff is still moving forward with the land banking possibilities in the southern urban area for a future school. However, timing, school needs and costs involved are the issues. Mr. Perkins stated that he would like more information on the $4.9 million differentiation staffing capacity formula for the schools. This is a double issue, because more schools have to be built which means more teachers are needed. He mentioned that the Board of Supervisors needs to know the state and federal governments requirements. He said if ten extra people are necessary for the school system to take care of the required testing, then the Supervisors need to know that, because they can hold the state responsible for some of the costs. The same thing is true with special education, etc., because it is these types of things that cost so much money. Mr. Tucker remarked that this is a good subject for discussion at a work session in the near future with the School Board. Mr. Martin pointed out that the matter is not being considered in this particular CIP, but he agreed with Mr. Perkins that a serious discussion needs to be held before any funding is appropriated. The issue involves a possible tax rate increase and an eight percent assessment increase as well as a vote by the public on the ACE proposals and some type of bond referendum about the courts and other capital needs. The school system and County Government are going to have to indicate to the public that the people cannot have all of these things without proper funding. Mr. Bowerman noted that some of the cost implications of the differentiated staffing is beginning to show in the School Board budget. He said he believes the implications are going to be more excessive than school officials first anticipated, which is the $4.9 million figure. Mr. Dorrier inquired if the financial advisers have already been hired. Mr. Tucker answered affirmatively. He reported that interviews were held, and the Davenport Company has been selected. The staff is meeting with company representatives now, and then they will be meeting with the Supervisors once they put together a presentation and proposal regarding the issues Ms. Gulati pointed out in the slide presentation. This will probably come to the Supervisors in May. Mr. Martin asked if one of their primary roles is to set the bonds up in ways that are beneficial for the County. Mr. Tucker answered, “yes.” Mr. Dorrier stated that it seems reasonable to get advice from the advisers before the tax rate is set, since capital expenditures are involved. He added that it seems to him if the financial advisers are being paid for advice, then it is needed now as well as later. Mr. Martin noted that what the advisers have been asked to do is not something they can do before the tax rate is set. He explained that County officials are asking them for advice in terms of the next few years. Mr. Dorrier reiterated that he thought they should be asked for advice now, since they are already hired. Mr. Perkins said he believes it would be impossible for anybody to evaluate the situation and give advice to this Board in two weeks. He added that County officials will have to make decisions this year without their help. Mr. Foley said they were hired to consider the situation over a ten year period of time. Ms. Thomas mentioned that County officials are facing the possibility of a bond referendum, which has not happened in quite a few years. She remarked that the financial advisers will be giving advice on things the Supervisors have not dealt with before such as the bond rating. She said financial advisers were hired because of the things the County has never done before. Mr. Bowerman stated that the Board members looked at the ten year potential and decided that March 15, 2000 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 11) one of the strategic ways to get to that point was to hire a financial adviser. Mr. Martin asked if there is an update available of where the Board started in the budget process, as well as what has been added. Mr. Tucker responded that an update would be included in the Board members’ packets on Friday (Mr. Bowerman left at 3:23 p.m.) Ms. Thomas mentioned the fact that the County is exceeding its established debt maximums within the next few years. This should be a warning, but she is unsure what to about it. Ms. White replied that the financial advisers will also be able to help with this situation. They will be examining the County’s plan and policies that have been set forth. Mr. Martin asked the Supervisors if they would like to discuss the Paramount Theater, CALAS and Region Ten, since time is available. Board members were in agreement. Mr. Martin remarked that he thinks the Paramount Theater is a worthwhile venture which will probably be beneficial to both the County and the City in the long term. However, he is unsure whether the County should commit to such a large amount of capital for this project, especially when the County is faced with all of its own capital needs. He pointed out that $1.0 million is 14 percent of the County’s capital budget. The stormwater project is over $400,000 and that is one of the places where improvements are needed. He commented that he cannot see spending $400,000 to move forward with stormwater issues, when the Paramount Theater is going to receive $500,000. He added that he would be more in favor of allocating $50,000 for one year if it is needed, and then committing to possibly $10,000 for another three years. He stated that it appeared Paramount representatives wanted a show of commitments so they could take this to the general public to raise funds. (Mr. Bowerman returned at 3:27 p.m.) Mr. Dorrier indicated that he has been to look at the Paramount Theater, and he has met with staff members. They are developing a learning center there, and they will be able to seat 1,200 people. He stated that it is in close proximity to the County and will also serve as a tourist attraction. He added that the request of $500,000 spread over five years should not be so significant. Mr. Tucker said Paramount representatives were looking for a total commitment, but it can be spread out over as many years as County officials choose. The Supervisors need to make this decision. Ms. Thomas stated that the Paramount is important to the City, because it is a major part of the downtown area. Mr. Perkins pointed out that the City will get more from this project than the County so it should be responsible for more funding. Mr. Bowerman commented that it is available to the community at large for use. Mr. Perkins suggested that the tax spin-off from the Paramount Theater be considered. Mr. Dorrier said something could be structured for the County. He stated that County officials do not have enough information to make a decision, and he suggested again that a representative from the Paramount talk to the Board. Mr. Martin remarked that he took the tour, and he knows what Paramount representatives want, and he knows their vision. His question is whether the County Government should commit $500,000 to this project, when over $437,000 is going to be spent this year for stormwater issues. He pointed out that County officials need to take care of the stormwater situation, but the Paramount is a luxury issue, and he thinks $500,000 is too much of a commitment for a luxury item. He noted that Region Ten is more of a County oriented expense than the Paramount Theater. Mr. Dorrier pointed out that the County is proposing to spend $500,000 for a bus route to Wal-Mart. The County will get something back for the funding it will give to the Paramount Theater. Mr. Bowerman commented that some of the Paramount events will be drawing people into the County, and some of them will be staying in the County. This is not strictly a dollar issue but, instead, it is a community issue. The Paramount will be open to any group that wants to use it, and some of these activities could benefit both the City and County. Mr. Martin concurred that he believes a lot of the revenue will be spent in the County restaurants and hotels. He stated, though, if a tax increase is a possibility, it is going to be hard for the Supervisors to approach the taxpayers, when it is pointed out that they just committed $500,000 to the Paramount Theater. Ms. Thomas agreed with Mr. Martin. She explained that when she talks to people about the budget, she asks them if they approve of spending a half million dollars on the Paramount Theater. She said it may be the tone of her voice, because she does not think this much money should be allocated there either, but it has gotten quite a reaction. Mr. Perkins noted that the money can’t be spent anywhere else. Ms. Thomas said it could be spent on the ACE Program. Mr. Perkins pointed out that this particular money cannot be spent for sedimentation concerns, etc. Mr. Bowerman commented that there is a logic in reducing the amount commensurate with the City’s allocation. Mr. Dorrier remarked that the Paramount Theater representatives will show County officials how to March 15, 2000 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 12) justify the amount. He said 1,200 people could come to Paramount five nights a week, and although all of them won’t be from Albemarle County, certainly there will be a spin-off that will benefit the County. This will offset the allocation, so it will eventually be self-supporting. He went on to say that a cost benefit analysis would show that it will help the County. Mr. Martin recalled that he supported the Amphitheater at Boyd’s Tavern with those exact arguments, even though he didn’t support putting County money into the project. He stated that he felt it was a benefit to the community as a whole, and he thinks the Paramount Theater is also. He added that if there was not the possibility of raising taxes, he might support the Paramount. However, he thinks now is the wrong time to try to justify the expense to the taxpayers. Mr. Dorrier suggested again that perhaps someone from the Paramount could explain their plans for the future. Mr. Martin stated that this is just their vision. He recalled listening to representatives explain their vision for the Amphitheater eight years ago. Mr. Dorrier emphasized that he believes in the Paramount Theater’s plans for the future. Mr. Martin said he believes in them too, because he thinks it has history. Mr. Bowerman remarked that he can articulate a rationale, but he does not know whether or not people will accept it. Mr. Martin suggested that a vote be taken on the total amount. He asked Mr. Dorrier what he is proposing. Mr. Dorrier said he is proposing for the County to commit to the full funding of $500,000 over a ten year period. Mr. Perkins reiterated that this money can only be spent in certain ways, and it can’t be spent on schools or a lot of other needs. Ms. Thomas inquired as to how much money is in the Tourism Fund. Ms. Gulati said if the Paramount project is funded at $50,000 a year, taking into consideration the different years with the different capital projects, there will be approximately $50,000 available in funds for other projects. The Tourism Fund is a good revenue source. Mr. Martin asked if the Supervisors commit to the other items within the budget, will they have committed to everything in the Tourism Fund except for $50,000. He wondered if there will be no more than this amount to spend for anything else of this nature. Ms. Gulati stated that the total budget in the Tourism Fund for next year is $840,000. Mr. Tucker said the staff’s recommendation is to fund 66 percent of the request which is similar to the City’s funding for this project, but the Board members can do whatever they want to do. Mr. Bowerman suggested that the item can be discussed further at Monday’s meeting. Mr. Martin commented that he thought the Board was going to deal with the Paramount Theater, CALAS and Region Ten now. Mr. Bowerman pointed out that the projects are in the CIP , and it is money that can’t be spent on other projects. Ms. Gulati explained that full funding for the CALAS capital request will come from the General Fund Balance, and it will be used toward a $1.0 million facility located in downtown Charlottesville to house its operations. Mr. Tucker said the request is for $55,000. Mr. Bowerman inquired if all of this funding will be handled in a lump sum for one year. Mr. Tucker answered affirmatively. Ms. Thomas noted that usually the Board gets a good review of these types of funding requests. The one for CALAS is new and different, and she asked if there is more information available. Ms. White said the County is beginning to see more of these types of capital requests from places such as JABA, etc. She stated that perhaps County officials need to develop a policy for handling them. Mr. Dorrier stated that he had suggested that CALAS team up with the University of Virginia Law School, but it wants to be independent. It is a one-time request, and he does not think it is an unreasonable amount. Ms. Thomas mentioned that CALAS is a public service, and it is not bringing in tax dollars. She emphasized that there are lots of nonprofit organizations that would like help with their building projects, and she needs some more guidance as far as why this is a good expenditure of County funds. Mr. Martin stated that CALAS also gets involved with the school system and sometimes forces school officials into labeling children as needing special education services. This is an added cost to the community. Mr. Dorrier commented that the local Legal Aid Society is recognized as being the best in the State, and it deserves this support. Mr. Martin concurred that it is a very good organization. Ms. White remarked that the staff struggles with the matter of which groups to support, and she believes there will be more and more of these requests. Mr. Bowerman said it is part of the Supervisors’ job as decision-makers to consider these types of March 15, 2000 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 13) things. Mr. Martin asked about Mr. Bowerman’s thoughts on CALAS. Mr. Bowerman said he does not have strong feelings either way at this time. Mr. Martin inquired if Board members want to put this item on hold until Monday’s meeting. Mr. Perkins questioned whether or not CALAS needs a $2.5 million building. Ms. Thomas indicated that she wanted to think about the matter some more. Mr. Martin said it appears two Supervisors want to fund the CALAS request, and two Supervisors want more information. Mr. Dorrier suggested that he will ask some questions to find out why CALAS won’t consider affiliating with the UVa Law School and why they want such an expensive building. Mr. Martin pointed out that CALAS does not take Federal money because it limits it as far as who it can represent, such as landlord and tenant issues. Mr. Dorrier pointed out that the Legal Aid Society is divided into two organizations. He said one can represent a wide range of people, and the other one, because of accepting Federal money, represents only certain types of clients. Mr. Martin stated that a decision will be made about CALAS on Monday. Next, Mr. Tucker called attention to the Region Ten $250,000 request. The recommendation is to fully fund the request over a five-year period. Ms. Thomas commented that she thinks the Region Ten request should be funded, because it has the strongest identification of need. She mentioned, though, that she does not believe the State does its part in taking care of mentally ill people. Mr. Martin stated that Region Ten is the responsibility of local government, so he agreed that the request should be funded. Mr. Martin then asked if it is the consensus of the Board to leave this funding in the budget. He also inquired if any of the Board members were interested in reducing the amount of funding. It was the consensus of the Board to leave this item in the budget as recommended. Mr. Bowerman mentioned that he has asked for information on the automobile and personal property taxes. However, he does not need the information on equipment, unless it has to be included. Mr. Martin wondered if the Board can raise the personal property tax rate. Mr. Davis replied that the personal property rate can be raised, but the taxpayers will have to pay any differential. Mr. Bowerman stated that if the personal property tax rate is increased, there will be an impact on people who own vehicles valued at less than $20,000 who otherwise would pay no tax. Mr. Davis remarked that if the personal property tax rate is raised, the State will not pay the amount of the increase. Board members indicated that they needed to see more information on this matter. Mr. Martin commented that he does not like the personal property tax because he feels as though people who live in the County have to have a decent car to drive back and forth to work, and it is a big tax for some people to have to pay. He said, though, that if the government is going to take care of the first $20,000, a person can get a good car for that amount of money. There may be a way for the County to get revenue without affecting the people who cannot afford it. Mr. Bowerman said Mr. Davis’ point is that if the personal property tax rate is raised ten cents, the taxpayer will be paying the extra ten cents per $100 on the value of the car. Ms. Thomas stated that taxpayers will also be getting a bill, and for a few years they may not have gotten a bill at all. Mr. Davis said taxpayers will get a bill reflecting the value of the car but it will show that the State is paying a certain amount. He stated that if the tax rate is raised, taxpayers will get a bill showing that the State is paying at the rate based on $4.28 and the taxpayer is paying the difference. Mr. Dorrier called attention to the projected carry-over amount of $2.3 million, and he asked how this extra money can be used. Mr. Tucker answered that it is one-time money, and it will not repeat itself in the future. He said staff never recommends using it for recurring costs such as salaries. He stated, though, that it can be used for capital costs. He mentioned that later in the year, Board members will see reappropriations which will probably have capital costs such as a vehicle for a certain department, and the carry-over funds can be used for these types of things. He said CALAS and Region Ten funding comes out of the carry-over funds because eventually this funding will end. He added that on Monday, the Board members will receive information on revenues and all available sources of funding. Mr. Dorrier asked about the Board’s reserve fund. Mr. Tucker replied that this fund has approximately $92,000. Mr. Martin noted that the Board has probably already used this reserve fund with the proposed additions to the budget. Ms. Thomas mentioned that she is concerned about not having the funding for the Neighborhood Plan. She wondered if the DISC recommendations are adopted, and there is not an immediate ability to get the Neighborhood Plan started, could the carry-over funds help in this area. Mr. Tucker answered affirmatively. This will be a one-time expense. He noted that the same thing is true with the aerial photography project. March 15, 2000 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 14) _________________ Agenda Item No. 3. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. There were none. __________________ Agenda Item No. 4. Adjourn. With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 4:15 p.m. ________________________________________ Chairman Approved by Board Date Initials