Loading...
2004-03-17A March 17, 2004 (Adjourned Meeting from March 15, 2004) (Page 1) An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on March 17, 2004, beginning at 1:00 p.m. in Room 235, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. This meeting was adjourned from March 15, 2004. PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mr. Kenneth C. Boyd, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Mr. Dennis S. Rooker, Ms. Sally H. Thomas and Mr. David C. Wyant. ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W. Davis, Clerk, Ella W. Carey, Assistant County Executive, Tom Foley, Assistant County Executive, Roxanne White, Director of Office of Management and Budget, Melvin Breeden, and Budget Analyst, Laura Vinzant. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 1:00 p.m. by the Chairman, Mr. Dorrier. Work Session: FY 2004-05 COUNTY BUDGET: General Government Budget Issues (continued from prior work session) Mr. Tucker explained that Gordon Walker and Diantha McKeel would join the meeting at 3:00 to present the school budget; at 4:00 Kimberly Suyes and Lorna Gerome would present the compensation and benefits budget from Human Resources. Ms. White noted that this is the first time the County has done a business plan, which is incorporated as a separate document in the budget workbook. She said that the Business Plan is a tool for moving the strategic plan from being a planning document into an implementation plan for allocating resources. The County’s strategic goals really drive the work that staff is doing, and therefore our process for allocating resources to those work items should also be directed and looked at through the eyes of the strategic plan, not necessarily by individual departments and their functional areas. Ms. White stated that the Business Plan connects the Strategic Plan, the Operating Budget, and the Capital Budget. She mentioned that in September, the Board would hold their retreat, and then provide feedback on items from the plans to staff for implementation. Ms. White stated that they will have better information by January 2005, so that when the budget work sessions begin in March, questions and decisions about initiatives will have already been made. Ms. White also pointed out that the five-year forecast becomes an integral part of how the strategic budgeting process is done, and that also will be ready for next year. She said that the Business Plan does not look at just the CIP, but also the Operating Budget. Both are resources – whether they are capital or operating, they are still resources that are being directed towards a strategic direction. Ms. White mentioned that the plan aligns project initiatives that have been requested as well as ongoing projects, and as items are approved they are incorporated into both capital and operating budgets. This allows staff with the Business Plan to look at this as a more system-wide approach, as opposed to looking at departments or what we might call “individual silos,” but instead how the County as a whole is going to approach some of these areas and these directions rather than looking at them very separated. Ms. White mentioned that the Business Plan is prefaced by an environmental profile to provide an understanding of current status and future projections. She noted that it is organized under each strategic direction – ongoing initiatives that have been carried over from a prior year that are already funded but are part of the Strategic Plan, and new initiatives in the capital and operating budgets that are already funded. Ms. White added that the third category includes recommended high-priority initiatives that have been prioritized by the Leadership Council and County Executive’s Office. She said that this includes the $800,000 in unfunded project mentioned at a previous work session. Ms. White explained that the first strategic direction area in the Business Plan is “High Quality Educational Opportunities,” which includes $689,000 in ongoing initiatives for the Albemarle High School renovation (kitchen, cafeteria, auditorium); state-required PVCC site work (the second year of a four-year 30,000 square foot science and technology building project. Ms. White noted that new initiatives total $6.7 million and include adding 20,000 square feet to Henley, increasing its capacity from 675 to 900; the new Hollymead gym and restoration; Murray High School remodeling (HVAC and window replacements); the new Southern Elementary School (design and engineering and land costs); the Scottsville Library project (Scottsville School). Ms. Thomas asked if the Southern Elementary School is still a priority, given the slowing enrollment. Ms. White responded that it is in the CIP now, but that should probably be discussed with the School Board to possibly be moved further out. Mr. Boyd said that his research shows the County has added 1,500 school seats over the last five years, but enrollment has only increased by 64 students, and it does not seem to make sense to spend millions on just a few kids. Mr. Rooker added that there are plans for a school site in the north area, and there may need to be elementary school redistricting to have that school accommodate the growth. Ms. White mentioned that the projects have been moved down on the list each year during CIP review. March 17, 2004 (Adjourned Meeting from March 15, 2004) (Page 2) Mr. Rooker noted that the developer of North Pointe had the school as part of the development’s center, adding he would not like for the Board to get into a situation where we are giving up cash proffers when you look at the priority list the southern school’s ahead of the northern school, and the need for the northern school’s in question. Mr. Foley explained the second strategic area is “Natural, Scenic, and Historic Resources.” He stated that there are many ongoing initiatives in place now, citing the ACE program’s success and the funding of the Neighborhood Master Plan, including Crozet and Hollymead. He said that there is an ongoing commitment to the Groundwater Protection Program, including a recommendation for a position that would be part of the Community Development Department. He stated that there is funding for the Ivy Landfill Remediation, and the Historic Preservation Plan, and most items included in this section are ongoing initiatives with previously approved funding. Mr. Foley explained that some of the higher priority initiatives that are not funded include Community Development related expenditures, including a Zoning Ordinance Planner to ensure execution of proffers that have been acquired through the development process, and also to assist in the development of Zoning Text Amendments. He mentioned several new policies that will require ZTA’s, and there is a real important need for this position. Mr. Rooker stated that his experience working with County Planning showed him that the County does not have as good of a handle on proffers as it needs to. He emphasized that following through on the millions of dollars worth of proffers related to the new larger developments is essential. Mr. Tucker concurred, adding that many of the proffers have time limits that need to be enforced. Mr. Boyd asked if it was possible to get a list of proffers. Mr. Rooker answered that this exists for each development. Mr. Foley said that staff is in the process of developing a tracking system so that a report can be produced that shows the status of proffers. Mr. Dorrier said there should also be at timeline available as part of that system. Mr. Foley explained that the “Stream Watch” program is a continuation of efforts to address water quality in the Rivanna watershed, totaling only $4,000 of additional funding. Ms. Thomas noted that the program involves adults and children to teach them how to monitor streams. If you multiply volunteer hours that you are going to get in return for a $4,000 investment, you would be pretty impressed. Mr. Wyant asked if the samples collected as part of that are brought forth as results. Mr. Graham responded that the data is being collected and used by Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, as well as the state for water quality issues. It has a lot of value for a lot of different people. Mr. Rooker noted that there is an active stream-watch program with the University of Virginia Environmental Sciences Department, and asked that County staff coordinate with them to share data. Mr. Foley reported on the “Quality of Life” section of the Business Plan, including the Volunteer Fire EMS Apparatus Replacement Plan – adopted by the Board last year – whereby the County picks up the funding for future capital for emergency vehicles for the volunteer system; the Fire Rescue Building Equipment Fund, to support fire and rescue services (3 to 4 fire stations). Mr. Rooker expressed concern over the ongoing operational expense related to the aggressive building plans for new fire stations. Mr. Foley stated that there is more information about that later in his presentation. He stated that the County is contributing to construction of the new S.P.C.A. facility over a five-year period. Ms. Thomas asked about old revenue-sharing money put aside for different projects, as had been discussed at a previous budget work session. At some point, she thinks the Board needs an accounting of those projects because a lot of them have not been done yet. They had revenue-sharing money put in at a certain point. Mr. Tucker and Mr. Breeden replied that they are working on that and would have it at the next meeting. Mr. Wyant cautioned that the County might become responsible for sidewalks and roadside maintenance in a “public works department” scenario if VDOT does not come through with funding. Mr. Foley answered that the County will have to plan for the future impacts as it relates to sidewalks in the new Neighborhood Model developments. Mr. Rooker said that VDOT has agreed to maintain the sidewalks in those developments. Mr. Tucker noted that there are criteria as to what they will or will not maintain, and the County may have to maintain some. Mr. Foley mentioned that in his home subdivision, homeowners have to pay a share for sidewalk maintenance. Mr. Rooker said that internal to developments, sidewalks would be maintained by homeowners much like any other common property, but sidewalks along state roads would be maintained by the state. Mr. Foley emphasized that it is related to foot traffic and foot-traffic generators’ distance to the sidewalks. Mr. Graham explained that the primary criteria is distance to a downtown area or school, but the subdivision street regulations that VDOT is changing this year proposes that they maintain a sidewalk within the right-of-way along a state-maintained road. The big issue is a level of service question, citing Berkmar as an example of how VDOT maintains the sidewalk. He said that the County may want a higher level of service for its sidewalks, which leads to the public works issue. Mr. Dorrier asked if the state considers 20 years a life for a sidewalk. Mr. Graham replied that they consider 40 years acceptable. Mr. Wyant said that citizens will expect more, and the Supervisors would hear about it. March 17, 2004 (Adjourned Meeting from March 15, 2004) (Page 3) Mr. Boyd asked about the Neighborhood Model developments’ maintenance of sidewalks. Mr. Rooker responded that an association is formed within neighborhoods that are responsible for that maintenance perpetually. Mr. Graham said that each sidewalk is worked out on a case-by-case basis with VDOT. He explained that there are sidewalk projects within the CIP that have already been identified, such as Route 20, Commonwealth Drive and Avon Street. Mr. Dorrier asked if the Board should come up with guidelines for sidewalks. Mr. Tucker stated that a lot of these provisions will be tied to the new subdivisions, and policies will have to be addressed in the future. Mr. Bowerman asked who would maintain the Four Seasons sidewalk. Mr. Graham replied that VDOT will maintain it. Mr. Wyant commented that there needs to be a sidewalk plan in place in order to get funds. Mr. Graham confirmed this. Mr. Tucker said that staff knows what is expected from VDOT, and vice-versa. Mr. Foley stated that as staff comes forward with these issues for some policy direction, they will lay out for the Board what VDOT is responsible for, and how we can approach it so VDOT would be responsible for more. But depending on whether the County meets VDOT standards or not, the County could be responsible for the sidewalks. Mr. Tucker emphasized that this item would come back to them next week, and would definitely need to be dealt with before the next CIP discussions this summer. Ms. White stated that the County athletic field development program is funded each year, depending on improvements suggested by users. She said that the Greenway Program receives $25,000 a year from the County to purchase easements and create trails; $35,000 a year is put aside to improve access to both rivers and lakes; Simpson Park will receive its last County contribution of $25,000 for playground equipment and landscaping; Paramount Theatre will receive the second of five years of contributions from the County. Ms. White added that the Whitewood Village Community Center is not receiving resources from the County. She concluded that the County is putting $7 million total for these ongoing initiatives that are supporting the strategic direction. Mr. Wyant asked how the field use is coordinated with the schools. Mr. Pat Mullaney, Director of Parks and Recreation, responded that the County is in charge of reservations for the middle and elementary school fields. The staff actually reserves those fields for community use. He added that the County does maintenance on select school fields that are the heaviest used – 14 out of 90 fields; the others are maintained by the schools. Mr. Foley said that there are some funded new initiatives totaling $1.7 million, including $400,000 for fire and rescue; the 800 mhz system costs; the ECC related to the 800 project; the mobile data technology project to put laptop computers into County officer’s vehicles. He emphasized that those projects are regional projects that the County receives $6 million in federal grants for. Mr. Foley said that plans for a joint fire, rescue and police training center – which will include a firing range for police; and the new Crozet Library are already underway. Ms. Thomas said that the County should proceed carefully with the firing range so that the situation in Nelson County doesn’t happen in Albemarle. Mr. Foley responded that the range would not be held in an urban area, and there would also be burning so smoke is an issue. He added that the County is looking into the possibility of a regional training center. Mr. Wyant asked about the new Crozet Library. Ms. White replied that the old Crozet School was considered as a possible site, but was found by trained associates of the library to not be cost-efficient to remodel; they recommended a newer facility. Ms. White said that during the Crozet Master Planning, it was recommended to have the library downtown, but nothing final has been decided. Mr. Wyant stated that using the old Crozet School as a cultural center is something the County should explore, as it has been brought into the growth area. Mr. Foley mentioned that the Crozet Waldorf School will soon be before the Board to request a lease extension also. Mr. Rooker asked about interaction with the Charlottesville Rescue Squad, and wondered who responded to calls in outlying parts of the County such as Scottsville. Mr. Dan Eggleston, Director of Fire and Rescue, responded that because of lack of volunteers, rescue officials have had difficulty answering some calls. Mr. Rooker asked who would be responsible for a 911-call in Crozet for example. Mr. Eggleston said that in that case Western Albemarle Rescue Squad would go, and they are working hard to establish coordination among all rescue squads. It is not as seamless as the County would like it to be. Mr. Tucker noted that the County has been committed to putting ambulances at the new fire stations to help meet standards of response. Mr. Dorrier asked if the volunteer firefighters are cross-trained as EMS workers. Mr. Eggleston responded that it is desirable to have that cross training. Mr. Bowerman suggested having a work session on emergency issues. Mr. Tucker agreed. Mr. Tucker continued, explaining that some of the recommended high-priority initiatives that are unfunded include four more police officers to try to reach a five-year timeframe of self-imposed standards. He said that having an EMS instructor and supervisor, as well as fire and rescue positions are also recommended. March 17, 2004 (Adjourned Meeting from March 15, 2004) (Page 4) Mr. Tucker emphasized that the recommended Community Development position for Neighborhood Model Implementation is an important one. The County has done a lot of good planning, but we do not really have the staff in place right now to do some of the things that we need to, to get out in those neighborhoods, in those communities, and start to arrange the financing and the land purchases, and also work on some of the infrastructure planning that is going to be needed to implement some of our new urban initiatives. He noted that the position is not a planner position, as the key here is implementation. Ms. White noted that drug court monies have been reduced federally and not made up by the state. She said that the County’s match to keep that program going would be part of this budget. Ms. White explained that the Inmate Community Workforce is a program with Parks & Recreation, and funding in the current recommended budget would hire a foreman to supervise inmates from the regional jail to maintain fields and other work around the County. She said that there is also funding recommended for an athletic field enhancement position. Ms. White said that there is a Child Protective Service investigator position recommended, as part of a federal mandate that requires 48-hour attention to complaints versus the County’s current five-day response time. She added that the Family Support Program has been self-supporting, but federal reimbursement funds are dropping, and the County needs to put in funding to make up for this gap. Ms. White said that a mental health and substance abuse worker position currently with social services will no longer be funded by a grant, and local funds to match state funds could continue that program. She said that an employment specialist position at the career center is 100% reimbursed, although an up-front County appropriation would be needed. Ms. White said that JAUNT is requesting $90,000 to meet urban transportation needs. Mr. Rooker asked if this amount is basically in-line with what was approved this year, and what would happen were it not funded. Ms. White responded that this amount would basically allow JAUNT to continue as it has been, and without it service would probably need to be restricted. Mr. Dorrier wondered about using the Charlottesville Transit System more, stating that it runs pretty efficiently. Ms. White responded that two-thirds of the transportation needs are being driven by Woods Edge and Mallside; the CTS bus is not able to go there. She added that the County will need to address how it handles urban transportation in the near future. Mr. Rooker said that JAUNT is more demand-responsive, and deals with elderly and disabled people. Mr. Dorrier commented that you have to call JAUNT for the service. Ms. White noted that JAUNT also has fixed routes, such as out to Crozet, if there is enough of a demand. Ms. White explained that the CTS route initially included the County Office Building South, and social services did a survey that showed only eight percent of its clients using that service. She said that spending $200,000 for a small percentage seems excessive, and County staff is looking at more affordable services – even JAUNT or taxis. Mr. Dorrier suggested setting up an ad-hoc group to deal with this. Ms. Thomas mentioned that there was a study done to expand CTS routes, but she does not see any of those recommendations in this budget. She noted that she has received several calls expressing concern that they cannot get public transportation to the new Martha Jefferson Hospital Center at Pantops. Ms. White replied that there are several initiatives out there – an extension to Wal-Mart, Pantops, and Mill Creek – but none of those have been acted upon. Mr. Dorrier suggested having staff take public transportation to see exactly how it works, as he has been impressed with the network. Mr. Bowerman emphasized that these issues have been looked at in the past. Mr. Tucker suggested looking at this Business Plan, and then adding in items that the Board sees as priorities. The Board will have to decide in the existing revenue if there is available revenue to move around to fund one or some of those CTS routes. Mr. Boyd asked how these could be made more self- sufficient. Mr. Tucker responded that currently, JAUNT and CTS like the big buses, and County staff is interested in talking about using smaller vehicles. Mr. Dorrier noted that at times, the bus is full. Mr. Tucker said he did not know what the answer is, and he thinks that is the reason the staff is hesitant just to keep throwing money at these routes without trying to look at them in a little more depth. Ms. Thomas suggested that the County be involved in discussions like the city is with CTS. Ms. White noted that each year the County gets requests from CTS for funding, but they are not providing a lot of information about use. Ms. White continued, stating that the affordable housing trust fund request from Piedmont Housing Alliance for $200,000, the County would like to provide $50,000 in ongoing revenues and $150,000 in one- time revenues; the plan would be to replace the $50,000 each year to create a $200,000 pool in three years. She explained that the fund provides downpayments and assistance toward home ownership. How those monies are used will depend on the results of the Housing Advisory Committee; the request right now is through PHA, but exactly how that money will be used would be as a result of the committee. Mr. Rooker said that there must be a mechanism in place to retain the pool of affordable housing. The County has to have some funds there to do it. Ms. White stated that there is $150,000 in Crozet Crossing’s fund, and that functions as a revolving fund. Ms. White said that the library enhanced services would need to take a back seat to funding their March 17, 2004 (Adjourned Meeting from March 15, 2004) (Page 5) baseline. Mr. Foley presented the fourth strategic direction, “Efficient and Effective Services.” He stated that reorganizing the Development Department would bring three departments together by July 1, 2004, creating a “one-stop shop” and centralizing operations. Mr. Foley added that the restructuring puts all reviewers of current development into one place, improving overall efficiency. Mr. Foley stated that the permit tracking system implemented also adds to this efficiency at the review phase, and creates data needed to track development and plan for the future. Mr. Boyd asked if that system would be used for tracking proffers. Mr. Foley responded that that is the system where proffers would be documented. Mr. Foley said that the County office building renovations will provide for needs for the next 20 years, and that saved the County $10 million over a previous plan. Ms. White presented information on the Juvenile Court expansion, with construction expected to start in September. She said that the technology upgrade funding is just to update geographical information in the GIS system. Mr. Rooker suggested having an efficiency expert come in and review County operations to encourage streamlining systems and only instate positions that are absolutely necessary. He mentioned having them take a look after the new office building is occupied. Mr. Wyant agreed, adding that his experience with the state showed duplication of effort. Mr. Dorrier mentioned that JLARC performed that service at the state level – an ombudsman to give an objective analysis. Ms. White reported that the County and a consultant have scrutinized the HR payroll system, all accounting systems, and policies and procedure changes to save money have been recommended. Ms. White explained that the Visitors Assistance Center at the main COB would be replicated at the COB-South, also functioning as a County information hub. She mentioned that funding is in the budget for the vehicle replacement fund, key business systems upgrades, and new voting equipment, all funded with one-time monies. Ms. White stated that there is $271,000 recommended for unfunded projects, such as the web content manager (increasing to full-time); fire stations computer upgrade support (hardware and software upgrades); loss control manager; and compensation analyst (shared with the school system); public safety systems analyst (data management); absentee clerk (registrar’s office for Presidential years). Ms. Jackie Harris, Registrar, stated that they have been asking for additional staff but have not added voter registration staff in many years, despite the increase in registered voters to 55,000. She noted that the motor-voter law allowed for one position at DMV, but there are three staff people at the registrar’s office to handle everything. Ms. Harris emphasized that she would like to have the additional staff person on an ongoing basis, not just absentee, as the numbers are constantly increasing. There is growing concern with a number of state and federal mandates being placed on the Registrar’s department that really require additional staff time. Mr. Dorrier asked if there are more elections. Ms. Harris responded that the presidential primaries will make four elections so far this year, and her staff is not prepared yet for the presidential election, which requires eight to nine months of planning. She emphasized that the City of Charlottesville has the same number of staff as her, but for only 19,000 registered voters. Ms. Thomas asked if she would have space for additional employees. Ms. Harris responded that they have reconfigured space in anticipation of growth, and only a computer and desk would be needed. Mr. Dorrier stated that he thinks Ms. Harris has made her case well. Mr. Rooker said that the statutes have become more voluminous and lengthy, and voter population is growing. It looks to him that the County is at a point here where it needs to provide an additional staff person to alleviate some of these conditions that have been raised to make sure we do not have election problems. The County has added precincts, added voted areas, but has not added personnel. The County cannot go on like that indefinitely. Ms. White asked her to clarify whether she would need the satellite person if she got a full time person. Ms. Harris responded that she could forego the absentee person if she got a full time person. Ms. White said that there is also a recommendation in the budget for an organizational study for Community Development. Regarding long-range planning, Ms. White said that the County has a contract with Davenport Financial Managers to develop a five-year model that will be ready for FY 06 budgeting and business plan, and will include both revenue and expenditure projections as well as linking capital projects with operating expenditures. Ms. White presented the financial implications for the library in the next fiscal year, Crozet, moving March 17, 2004 (Adjourned Meeting from March 15, 2004) (Page 6) into the Northside expansion in 2009. She said that Parks & Recreation increases are the operating costs of field maintenance projects. Mr. Foley presented the long-range public safety initiatives, including $250,000 per year in growth to meet the self-imposed five-year standard for more officers per capita. He said that fire and rescue expenses have changed from 2002 to 2003 primarily because of the new Monticello fire station and new positions. Mr. Foley said that the climb to 2009 is much steeper because of the plans in the current CIP for the construction of three additional fire stations. He noted that those plans are based on the County’s Comprehensive Plan for five-minute response, emphasizing that the Hollymead area – the fastest-growing area of the County – does not have this coverage. Mr. Foley said that Seminole Trail cannot be reached in five minutes, nor can Earlysville, and the new planned stations will address these gaps. Mr. Foley said that the response goal is five minutes in the development areas, and 13 minutes on the rural areas. Mr. Bowerman asked if that is cumulative money, or new money each year. Mr. Foley responded that it is cumulative for the new things, but represents additional cost. Mr. Breeden clarified that the total will have grown to $5 million.” Mr. Foley said that part of what is driving the plan is a series of stations so that the County will not have to rely on the city, noting that the city does not meet the five-minute response times. He explained that the north fire station would include firefighters, paramedics to run an ambulance, and a ladder truck to meet the basic needs there, emphasizing that volunteers will still be needed. Mr. Foley said that currently Earlysville station fills in night calls in the north area, but there will be a recruitment process to try to get volunteers for north station, as Earlysville already has trouble staffing just their station. Mr. Foley said that one assumption is that Earlysville staff would not want to move from their station into the new station. Mr. Boyd asked if there were proffers as part of the Hollymead Town Center. Mr. Foley replied that the construction of the station relies on proffers totaling $600,000 in cash for operating expenses. Mr. Bowerman asked if it would be cheaper not to have Earlysville, and asked if Earlysville went to all volunteer, with the north station being paid and volunteer. Mr. Wyant asked what coverage they would have in Earlysville. Mr. Foley responded that Earlysville said they would not have sufficient coverage if volunteers were the sole staff. Mr. Bowerman wondered if both stations are needed. Mr. Foley said that the level of service would be impacted. Mr. Foley said that Pantops is the second station in the CIP, and relies on a partnership with the city to help man a station there. In spite of that, Mr. Foley said, there is 24/7 coverage of firefighters to run a combination ladder/engine, as well as an ambulance with eight more paramedics. He emphasized that they have tried to phase in the costs, based on minimum staffing. Mr. Foley noted that there are currently 24 paid firefighters, and there will need to be battalion chiefs to oversee shifts, and those costs are reflected in the plan presented. He noted that Scottsville and East Rivanna’s requests are not included here. Mr. Dorrier asked if it would be possible to create a satellite station. Mr. Foley responded that you would not be able to meet a five-minute response time with a small station. Mr. Bowerman said that this system is based on volunteers, and it is hard to balance paid and volunteers. He noted that Albemarle is drawing on the experience of other localities where this system has worked effectively. Mr. Foley noted that the Monticello station has worked very well. Mr. Dorrier commented that morale is quite high there. Mr. Foley agreed, adding that there are 12 paid firefighters there. He noted that the city contract expires in 2010, and in 2007 the County needs to begin discussion about a new plan. Mr. Breeden confirmed that the County is spending $600,000 annually on the current arrangement. Mr. Foley mentioned that the city could not cover some of the areas served by the new stations anyway. He added that there is a plan for an Ivy substation to serve the dense residential area there. Mr. Bowerman said that you get a better fire rating with better coverage. Mr. Eggleston mentioned that there are some dense commercial population areas that would definitely benefit from that rating, such as Pantops with MJH. He added that the city contract is working, but they are just at different levels as far as what they concentrate on. They just do not have the depth of personnel that are trained at advanced life support as the County does. Mr. Foley said that discussions of tax relief for the elderly would be carried over to Monday, at which time the list of items compiled from these work sessions would also be considered. He emphasized that the point of his presentation was to focus on the operating side of capital projects. (The Board took a recess at 2:45 p.m. and reconvened at 3:00 p.m.) __________ March 17, 2004 (Adjourned Meeting from March 15, 2004) (Page 7) School Board Budget Ms. Diantha McKeel, Chairman of the School Board, and Mr. Gordon Walker, presented the schools’ funding request, noting that it contains three primary principles: compensation to attract and retain highly qualified staff, funds to support school infrastructure; and advancement of instructional programs beyond Standards of Learning. Mr. Walker said that there are several challenges related to staff retention: about 30 percent of the County’s most experienced teachers will be eligible to retire in the next two years – a result of the aging of the baby boom population; in 2003, 60 percent of teachers who left the system had less than three years of teaching. Mr. Boyd asked about the 60 percent figure, stating that he had heard that number before, and asked for clarification. Dr. Castner, Superintendent of Schools, replied that the industry norm is half that, and he finds the number surprising. Mr. Rooker asked if it was due to relocation by university professionals who might have spouses in school. He asked if exit interviews have been given, and what those responses are. Mr. Walker replied that he would be providing that information shortly, noting that the County’s pay scales make it difficult to attract and retain staff – including school administrators as well as teachers. He said that the School Board believes that the medium of the market is not the right target. In order to be competitive, the salaries need to be at least in the top quartile. Mr. Walker emphasized that Charlottesville City and Fluvanna County pay their teachers more, noting that the whole scale is higher and the gap increasing with tenure. Mr. Walker presented information showing that pay is the main reason exiting school staff gives for leaving. He mentioned that Albemarle hires twice as many teachers as the other jurisdictions mentioned each year and hence the County needs to be even more competitive in pay. Mr. Walker said that starting teachers are paid about $1,300 less in Albemarle, and that gap becomes significant in 30 years experience. He reported that Charlottesville is scheduled to go to $35,000 starting salary, an increase of over $2,700; Fluvanna is going to $35,600, an increase of about $2,300. Mr. Walker said that Albemarle is proposing $34,082, representing an increase in the gap between the localities. Mr. Boyd asked if there were figures available that also included benefits. Mr. Walker responded that the VRS figures would be the same. Mr. Rooker said that he had requested information on benefits, noting that the medical plan may be the only difference. Dr. Castner reported that the Charlottesville system is more generous, and if the employee does not take medical they get cash out. He added that other than that, the overall benefits are comparable. Ms. McKeel stated that Human Resources have indicated in the past that the County has remained competitive with benefits, but has not surpassed other localities. Mr. Boyd responded that he is looking for the cost to the County. Mr. Walker emphasized that the community is a better place to live when there are great schools, regardless of whether residents have children enrolled or not. The value of education in our community extends beyond than just those who may have grandchildren or nieces or nephews or children in the schools, and consequently the vibrancy of our business economy depends on how great our schools are. Mr. Walker said that a solid infrastructure is also extremely important – aging buses and outdated technology need to be replaced, and are included in the budget at a cost of $1.3 million. He added that restoration of building services is “key to protect our asset” so as not to see further deterioration of schools. Mr. Walker said that there is currently one technician for every 350 computer workstations, and the goal in this budget is to have 1:277 stations; the state recommends a 1:200 ratio. He noted that SNL financial is seeking a 1:110 ratio, and at JABA the ratio is 1:125. Mr. Walker mentioned that there is just over $1 million in the budget to provide services to special needs children through the Comprehensive Services Act. He added that Special Education is increased by $500,000 over the current $16 million, noting that only 12 percent of the cost for special ed. is provided from the federal government, despite mandates and promises that they will provide $40 million. Mr. Walker stated that VRS costs have increased to $1.6 million, and the School Board has also budgeted for a 16 percent increase. Mr. Dorrier asked if the schools had a mandatory retirement age. Mr. Walker responded that there is not. Mr. Rooker said that Brian Wheeler had come before the Board with unfunded SOL costs representing $3.8 million, and asked if the School Board agrees with that. Mr. Walker replied that they do agree, and they have communicated that to General Assembly representatives. Ms. McKeel added that that amount is based on two-year-old figures, also. Mr. Walker said that in order to support No Child Left Behind (NCLB) requirements, there are four new positions needed for English as a Second Language (ESOL), along with additional testing and adoption of SOL textbooks. He added that the books would cost $250,000, which would enable them to March 17, 2004 (Adjourned Meeting from March 15, 2004) (Page 8) replace them in a more economical fashion over the long run. Mr. Walker stated that there are a number of older students at risk of not graduating, and there is funding recommend to pinpoint deficiencies and help them to graduate on time. Ms. McKeel reported that part of the budget also includes moving students ahead, enabling them to stst gain “21 century skills in 21 century schools.” She said that Federal Reserve Chair Alan Greenspan said recently, “U.S. workers must be better educated so they can find jobs in an economy that is increasingly creating conceptual goods, rather than tangible products.” Ms. McKeel emphasized that they cannot do th that in a school system that is based on 20 century data and materials. They have got to be able to move forward. She added that that means moving past the SOL’s and teaching children critical thinking and problem-solving skills. Ms. McKeel presented information on schools of the future, and showed a two-minute video reflecting these changes. Ms. McKeel emphasized that what the School Board is looking for with their budget request is moving schools forward and a framework for students for quality learning. She noted that they have move past the “Design 2004,” which was an implementation of technology, and now they are trying to impact instruction beyond the SOL’s. To do that, the School Board must have money for staff development to improve teaching skills and advance quality learning. Ms. McKeel stated that there is money to improve teacher performance appraisal training to identify teacher expectations and add clarity to classroom expectation, as well as bringing more “best practice education” to classrooms. She added that instructive technology and support is also provided for in this budget. Ms. McKeel compared the school’s approach to what business might call “research and development,” moving schools from good to great. She emphasized that the schools have been “good stewards of public funds.” Ms. McKeel said that if the tax rate is reduced, the school’s request would cause a difference of $2.1 million; if the tax rate remained at 76 cents, the difference is $900,000. She explained that the schools have differentiated staffing, which means they took existing funds and moved them around in the system to target the most at-risk children. Ms. McKeel said that they have level funded schools for the last four out of five years, and the only way schools have received new dollars is by increased enrollment. She mentioned that the schools have phased in new programs to be accountable for dollars, such as gifted and literacy programs. Ms. McKeel noted that the diversity position has been phased in. Ms. McKeel stated that the schools have instituted hiring freezes as needed, and have reduced the number of aides riding on school buses – which led to calls from concerned parents. She added that all departmental funding amounts have been reduced. Ms. McKeel mentioned that school times were changed to save money on bus use, which was not a popular move with parents, and principals have also expressed concern. She acknowledged that that move did save a great deal of money that they were able to channel back into instruction. Mr. Walker provided some ranking information on schools: Albemarle County Schools are ranked among the top 10 percent of all school divisions in Virginia. Dr. Castner clarified that the Stanford scale is used for that determination. He said that this test is more rigorous than the SOL ranking. Mr. Walker stated that SAT scores and participation have both increased. Dr. Castner reported that the average SAT score in Loudoun is 1052, and Albemarle is about the same as Fairfax. Ms. Thomas asked if these figures showed that 81 percent of graduating seniors are taking the SATs. Dr. Castner responded that over 800 out of 1,000 graduating seniors do take the SATs. Mr. Walker mentioned that out of 1,000 graduating seniors, only 20 remain challenged to meet graduation requirements, and the schools hope to bring that number to zero by June 6. Mr. Walker concluded that the School Board is doing the best job it can predicting what they think the future will be, and it is critical that they stay on that track. The School Board believes that this budget does move them continuously in the direction of meeting the requirements of the future. Mr. Dorrier asked how much the SOLs reflect digital technology and use of computers. Dr. Castner replied that on some of the math tests, graphic calculators are allowed, and complete SOL tests are available online. He said that students like taking the tests that way, but the school is not equipped to test everyone that way. Mr. Dorrier commented that it seems computer literacy will be increasingly important, and asked how Albemarle County stresses that and makes it a part of its integrated approach. Dr. Castner referenced the video shown, which showed young students using hand-held computers and graphic calculators. It is not about technology, it is about technology facilitating access to the web using history in a different way than just a book. It is about accessing to be able to crank out numbers when you are doing statistics that you can do in seconds as opposed to filling out five pages. It is an integral part. That is why we are putting it into our teacher evaluation system, because we cannot March 17, 2004 (Adjourned Meeting from March 15, 2004) (Page 9) afford to have it be optional for some teachers deciding that they do not want to do it. The School Division needs to have all the teachers. Ms. McKeel mentioned that at the University of Virginia, custodians use computers to get their job assignments and communicate with other employees. You cannot find very many jobs anymore that do not have to have that skill. Mr. Dorrier commented that the County is hiring fewer people now, but making better use of the people that are hired. Mr. Boyd commended Ms. McKeel and Mr. Walker on their budget presentation. He added that there have been other areas in the County that have been shorted so that a high quality of service could be provided to the school system. Mr. Boyd expressed concern over the building of new schools, noting the 1,544 seats with another 865 planned in the CIP. Yet, when he looks at the student population, school population only went up by 64 students in that time period. He mentioned that the County had projected an increase of 495 students. He asked what can be done so that this does not happen in the future. Ms. McKeel responded that in the six years she has been on the Board, the School Board has made conscious decisions as a School Board to institute programs and offer things for the students – be they initiatives or programs – that directly impacted the capacity of the schools. They have taken classroom space away to accommodate the strings program and storage, adding that they have made conscious decisions to impact capacities in the schools so that the school’s capacity for students has actually dropped, which addresses part of what Mr. Boyd is saying. Ms. McKeel continued to explain that the schools also need room for computer classrooms, which is taking away from the capacity of schools. Dr. Castner emphasized that 75 percent of schools are very near capacity, although schools like Burley are under capacity. When you look at the amount of wise use of capital funds the dollars that you are spending to get 13,000 seats are actually much better for the taxpayer then running up to having 75 portable classrooms and then having to build in a reactionary way as opposed to a proactive way. He added that that has been the strength of the Capital Improvement Program that has been special for this County. Dr. Castner emphasized that learning problems can arise from the mobile classrooms, and it is important to plan for the future. He noted that the School Board believes that the County may be able to prolong building a Southern Elementary because some of the growth “has chilled a little bit” in that part of the County. Dr. Castner said that having an extra 500 or so seats will save down the road, as it is hard to predict growth areas. That is one of those things that we can never perfectly anticipate. Mr. Walker added that there are mandates that impact on availability of space, including Special Education, ESOL, etc. The School Board is trying to be conscientious as it relates to the CIP and if the Board wants to keep class sizes where they are, that also has an impact on capacity. Mr. Rooker mentioned that the School Board adopted a policy last year that changed capacity ratios. Dr. Castner explained that they found by adding special classrooms – such as computer classrooms – they were never in the original capacity formula. Mr. Rooker said that in looking at capital expenditures, the Board of Supervisors noted plans for Southern Elementary in light of the small enrollment increase. He emphasized that the County is getting the North Pointe Elementary site in lieu of cash proffers. The Board does not want to accept a site and then find out that there is some problem with it. Mr. Rooker added that if Southern is the highest priority, but space comes available for the North Pointe site, is it possible to move that ahead. Ms. McKeel replied that the CIP has remained fairly fluid, and schools have been able to move things around. She mentioned that adding seats at Henley will postpone the expense of a new middle school. Ms. McKeel said that their Long Range Planning Committee would be meeting soon and looking at all of these issues. Mr. Rooker commented that there is no complete certainty. The Board has to operate on the best information it has. Mr. Boyd said that when he was on the School Board, he argued against bricks and mortar over teacher salaries. He fully, fully supported what the School Board is trying to do with the teacher salaries, but what he wants to know is whether or not the School Board is committed to making that their top priority. If the Board of Supervisors cannot fund their entire budget, are they going to drop other things? He said that the Board of Supervisors does not know for sure how the allocations will be used, as the School Board ends up having that discretion. Ms. McKeel noted that the schools have always had cuts, and the School Board has collectively made decisions about where those would occur. Mr. Boyd asked if the teacher’s salaries would be held above other initiatives. Ms. McKeel responded that the School Board has said as a Board that it is their number one priority. Mr. Boyd said that in the audit reports, there has been $16.5 million in undesignated funds in the School Board budget, but only $4.4 million is found as reapplied balances for the next year. He commented that the remaining $12.1 million could have gone to teacher salaries. Ms. McKeel emphasized March 17, 2004 (Adjourned Meeting from March 15, 2004) (Page 10) that the School Board has made conscious decisions about those expenditures. She added that they all go through the system and make the decisions and try to do the best they can. Mr. Rooker commented that the School Board gets a percentage of operating revenues, and the Supervisors look to the School Board to make good use of those funds. He added that the School Board does an extremely good job with the funds they get at producing results in the community. Mr. Rooker stated that the statistics show a system that is moving upward and improving its results. The County is getting a pretty good return on its investment. He cautioned against micro-managing the School Board’s budget, and the best way to hold them accountable is looking at the results, factoring in the student population. Mr. Boyd said that he does question how that money has been spent, with the schools getting increases each year. Ms. McKeel emphasized that salaries are the top priority, and she cannot say at this time what will be cut if the budget is not fully funded. Mr. Boyd stated that the School Board’s budget – unlike how the overall County budget – has been presented to the Supervisors without a clear list of what will be funded and what will not. Mr. Walker said the School Board will pass a balanced budget in the end. The School Board will meet its priorities and they have stated what those priorities are. Their responsibility according to state statute is to present the Supervisors with a needs-based budget, which they have done. The School Board has done those three things. He added that he does not think anything is gained from playing off education against other needs in this County. Mr. Boyd commented that in reality, that is what happens. Mr. Rooker disagreed. That is why there is a funding formula that the Board has a sharing agreement with the schools based on percentage of revenues, and ultimately there is a certain amount of the revenues that go to the schools, and the other side of those revenues are available for general government needs. He said that the County looks to the School Board to make a determination about how those funds are spent to produce results. Mr. Boyd said that the formula could be changed, and asked if the Supervisors could direct funds for things like salaries. Ms. Thomas commented that that has never been done, but the last time that was discussed was before there was an elected School Board. She thinks it is much more difficult to be responsive to the electorate if the Supervisors do that at this point. Mr. Dorrier asked how many teachers would be eligible for retirement based on the 30 percent figure. Dr. Castner replied that there are approximately 350 teachers eligible to retire. Mr. Dorrier asked if the replacement teachers would be coming in at lower pay rates. Dr. Castner responded that the average teacher hired has four to five years experience. Mr. Rooker stated that Albemarle cannot afford to watch the gap widen in teacher pay, as there is a competitive hiring market. He is in favor of trying to move forward and move toward the top quartile so the County at least has pay somewhat commensurate with the kind of results the system achieves. Mr. Wyant said that the money should be spent in the classroom, and asked what the student to teacher ratio was. Dr. Castner replied that the ratio is 1:21 average, but some classes are slightly less and some are slightly more. He mentioned that special education classes and ESOL classes have lower ratios. Mr. Wyant noted the increase of 64 students over five years, and said that is a “gross error” over the 500 predicted. Dr. Castner pointed out that the difference is less than 10 percent when total population is considered. The predictability of that is not as exact a science as maybe the School Division would like, and sometimes we fund the actual we do not fund the projections. He stated that in the years when they have less students, they fund less teachers. Dr. Castner said that compared to other systems, their predictions are not that far off, although he acknowledged that their kindergarten enrollment prediction a few years ago was a miss. Ms. McKeel emphasized that the School Board does not staff to those projections, they staff to actual numbers of students in the seats in the fall. Mr. Boyd said that the Supervisors fund based on what the School Board presents to them. Mr. Rooker stated that the Supervisors are allocating a percentage of funds to schools, not allocating money to the schools based upon their projected enrollment. Mr. Boyd replied that the budget presented is based on growth. Ms. McKeel said that the budget does not take into account what types of students are added – such as Special Education and ESOL. Mr. Wyant emphasized that there needs to be a better job done in projecting enrollment. Dr. Castner suggested having a joint discussion for the next CIP planning. Mr. Rooker said that the Northern Elementary situation is the immediate issue that needs to be addressed. Mr. Jackson Zimmerman, Finance Director of Albemarle County Schools, addressed the Board. He emphasized that enrollment projections are done in coordination with the Planning Department in the March 17, 2004 (Adjourned Meeting from March 15, 2004) (Page 11) County on an annual basis. On an annual basis, the schools are averaging well within less than one percent variation, five-year projections are based on kids that were barely born, and where they will be five years later. He mentioned that as the economy slows, so does population growth, and projections are impacted. Mr. Zimmerman noted that he believes they have a good handle on projections, much better than what the state predicts. The projections are about as good as they are going to get. Ms. Thomas said that developers always predict double the number of students per year. That makes it really hard for County planners to predict where people are actually going to be living five years from now. She added that there is an amazing difference in what we know now about school performance than what was known just a few years ago. She thinks the Supervisors know what they are getting from the school system and it’s impressive.” Ms. McKeel said that same data has led the school system to a more personalized instruction system where teachers do not operate in a vacuum. Mr. Dorrier thanked Ms. McKeel and Mr. Walker for their presentation. He said that the tax rate would be discussed later. (The Board took a brief recess at 4:15 p.m., then reconvened.) ___________________ Joint Meeting with School Board on Compensation and Medical Benefit Issues SCHOOL BOARD PRESENT: Ms. Diantha McKeel; Mr. Gordon Walker; Mr. Steve Koleszar; Ms. Sue Friedman; Ms. Pamela Moynihan; Mr. Brian Wheeler; and Ms. Barbara Massie. SCHOOL BOARD ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: Dr. Kevin Castner, Superintendent; Dr. Pam Moran, Assistant Superintendent for Instruction; Ms. Kimberly Suyes, Director of Human Resources; Ms. Lorna Gerome, Human Resources Manager for Benefits and Compensation; Mr. Mark Trank, Deputy County Attorney; and Ms. Jennifer Johnston, Clerk of the School Board. Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. At 4:20 p.m., Mr. Dorrier called the Board of Supervisors back to order. Ms. McKeel called the School Board to order. _____________________ Agenda Item No. 2. Presentation: Albemarle County Compensation Report. Ms. Suyes and Ms. Gerome summarized the staff report (on file in the Clerk’s Office). At the June 26, 2003 Joint Board meeting, the Joint Boards supported staff’s recommendation to “collect and analyze data over the summer, along with the annual salary review and bring a recommendation on the appropriate methodology for determining market competitiveness back to the Boards.” Several recent issues have emphasized the difficulties of attracting and retaining a highly qualified workforce. These difficulties include: ? Recent recruitments have resulted in a very small pool of candidates for many positions; ? Top candidates have declined offers; The high cost of living in Albemarle is apparent to candidates; and ? A growing percentage of our workforce is eligible for retirement. At the November 6, 2003 Joint Board meeting, staff was directed to: 1) consider different markets for different positions and 2) consider cost of living. This report addresses those issues, presents the options that were evaluated and provides recommendations. As competitive salaries are critical for Albemarle County to attract and retain high performing employees, staff has evaluated alternatives and is presenting recommendations in response to the Board’s direction to address these issues. This report outlines the analysis of those options to include: ? Market/Market Positioning-Staff evaluated a variety of methodologies to include: peer- ranking, setting a different target of our adopted market, and selecting a peer group of localities from our adopted market based on similar size, cost of living and student enrollment. ? Implementation methodologies-Staff reviewed several options to implement the desired market target to include creating a separate administrator/management scale, expanding the range spread of our current scale and adding paygrades to current classified/administrative salary. These recommendations are presented to the Boards for their consideration. It is noted that all final funding is subject to, and based upon, available revenue. Implementation strategies are being developed within allocations available within each respective budget. 1. For positions that are recruited on a regional/national level, identify competitive market as the identified localities within our adopted market that we typically recruit against for those positions. This subset of our adopted market should address cost of living issues and target competitive market position. Further evaluation of our ability to attract and retain highly qualified candidates will March 17, 2004 (Adjourned Meeting from March 15, 2004) (Page 12) be ongoing. 2. Maintain current salary structure and increase the span of our scale. 3. Waive policy to allow reclassification increases to be phased in over a two year period. Ms. Suyes noted that for FY 2004-05 planning projections, her staff projected a three percent merit pool, factoring in the WorldatWork 3.3 percent, plus adjustment. They also projected a two percent classified salary scale adjustment based on survey data that the County was below market 1.1 percent; they also projected that would be moving. Ms. Suyes stated that they believe their current strategy is effective in recruiting and retaining classified positions recruited for locally. She reminded the Boards of what was discussed in November, including comparatively lower teacher salaries, and the small pool of candidates for several positions recruited for in a larger market. Ms. Suyes mentioned that they have advertised nationally for a high school principal position, and only 17 applications have been received, with only six of those with principal experience. Ms. Suyes said that out of 21 applications for elementary school principals, only eight have principal experience. Regarding local government positions, she reported that the County has had to reopen searches for jobs such as Deputy Assessor, Director of Finance and Police Captain. The County’s numbers are dwindling as far as attracting candidates. She mentioned that the Office of Management and Budget Director position had a low number of applicants, and the top candidate withdrew due to high cost of living. Mr. Boyd asked if she had been talking with her counterparts in other localities about their experiences. Ms. Suyes responded that they have not experienced this to such a degree. She thinks as a whole recruitment is tougher, but what is hurting the County is the results of the impact of low salaries for those positions that you do not recruit for locally, for those positions that are competitive. She added that localities that are paying more are getting those candidates, noting that the high cost of living is making it difficult to attract and retain employees. Mr. Rooker commented that the retention rate for local government positions is very good. Ms. Suyes agreed. Ms. Suyes said that 65 percent of teachers that have left had 0-3 years of experience with Albemarle County; of those, one-half had somewhere between 4 and 33 years teaching. Therefore, 50 percent of those should be people the County is keeping. Mr. Rooker asked what the retention rate was for teachers in their first three years of employment. Ms. Suyes replied that she does not have that number at this moment. Mr. Koleszar said that another way of looking at it is that the County is losing about 120 teachers a year, or 10 percent of teaching staff. Ms. Suyes said that Mr. Boyd had asked if these teachers were brand new to their career, and the answer is no, they are not. She said that regarding exit survey data, over 20 percent of people that replied indicated salary as the reason. Ms. Suyes stated that at the November Board meeting, she had received direction to look at different markets for local governments and schools, as well as for positions outside the local market. She said that the Boards also asked her to look at cost of living. Ms. Suyes presented information on her findings. She stated that peer ranking was considered – looking at citizen population, student enrollment and cost of living across the nation to identify peer groups. Ms. Suyes added that they also looked at a target other than median in the adopted market of 30 organizations. She said they looked at Spotsylvania, Prince William, Loudoun, Charlottesville, Hanover, Chesterfield, Chesapeake, James City County and Roanoke for a peer group within the 30. Ms. Suyes stated that the cost of living data shows three localities above Albemarle, and five are below. If we target these nine localities as our peer group, then we are recommending that we target the median of this peer group. Ms. Suyes indicated that further data collection may delay the County from moving forward in their salary restructuring, which they believe would not be wise. Based on this data, Ms. Suyes emphasized that Albemarle salaries are between 9.8 percent to 20 percent lower than the comparative peers. Mr. Rooker asked what positions were evaluated. Ms. Suyes responded that information had been provided earlier. Ms. Gerome said they looked at 22 positions in schools and 22 in local government being used in the study. Ms. Suyes said that the next step after identifying the positions in the comparative localities was identifying the salary structure, and what they are recommending is adding pay grades to the current County scale, keeping the spread the same as it is now. She said that adding pay grades is simple to administer, simple to communicate, allows them to be competitive with new hire salaries, and allows competitive salary placement for current positions. Ms. Gerome provided information on one of the benchmark positions. She explained that the current midpoint of the position is $72,423; looking at data from nine localities showed the target midpoint at $93,022. Ms. Gerome said that the next step would be to determine placement on the salary scale of that position, which would bump it up to pay grade 24, to make the midpoint $93,756. Ms. Suyes said that the next step is implementation, and she is recommending a two-year phase in, with increases calculated from midpoint. If you were to move two or more pay grades, there would be a 10 percent increase from midpoint – 5 percent July ’04, and 5 percent July 05 percent. She clarified that that is 10 percent based on two pay grades, answering Mr. Boyd’s question. March 17, 2004 (Adjourned Meeting from March 15, 2004) (Page 13) Mr. Boyd commented that industry is going more towards broad-banding. Ms. Suyes responded that they are looking at a short-term approach to fix an immediate problem, but they are looking at broad- banding for a long-term solution. She mentioned that that requires lots of analysis, and she and Ms. Gerome will soon attend a conference on broad-banding. She added that expanding pay grades would still allow broad-banding. Ms. Gerome commented that they then could collapse ranges. Ms. Suyes stated that one pay grade up would be seven and one-half percent increase, which would be spread over two years as 3.75 percent in ’04 and ’05. She clarified that the increase would apply to the 44 identified positions used in the analysis, and they do not have an exact figure as to how many actual employees that would affect. Ms. Suyes added that they are recommending a waiver in policy to allow for a two-year phase-in. Mr. Wyant asked who identified the 44 positions in November. Mr. Rooker said that Human Resources identified them. Mr. Boyd asked about the price tag for this change. Mr. Tucker explained that local government has about $100,000 set aside, and schools have about $300,000 set aside in the current budget. He said that they have identified a target figure that will accomplish the goal the Boards recommended in December. Mr. Tucker said there is some additional analysis that needs to be done, but if the Board agrees with the general framework of how to move the positions forward, that is what the staff will do with the money available. He clarified for Mr. Dorrier that the hard-to-fill positions would be moved up in pay scale. Mr. Dorrier asked if we know what scale range we are setting. Mr. Tucker said that they are talking about expanding the scale up to 28 instead of 25, and we would move those hard to fill positions after they finish their analysis of all of the positions. Ms. Gerome said that the nine targeted positions are representative of school and local government positions of that type. Mr. Rooker asked if there was an action or consensus need. Mr. Tucker replied that they are looking for an action or consensus if the method presented by Ms. Suyes and Ms. Gerome was acceptable to use as a framework for moving salaries along as discussed. Mr. Boyd asked if it were approved, if HR was planning on going ahead and adjusting the scales. Ms. Suyes replied that that would be their goal. Dr. Castner said that it would be helpful if the approval was granted today for the principal positions, as he is planning on beginning interviews within the week. Mr. Boyd asked if the information included total compensation or just salaries. Mr. Tucker said that it includes benefits. Mr. Boyd offered a motion that the Board of Supervisors accepts the compensation restructuring as presented by staff. Mr. Rooker seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded votes: AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, and Mr. Boyd. NAYS: None. Mr. Koleszar then offered a motion to adopt the recommendations as provided by staff. Mr. Wheeler seconded the motion. Ms. Massie asked how long it would be before the item was revisited. Mr. Rooker responded that the plans would be implemented based on budgeted amounts. Ms. Massie said that she understood that, but she asked if the Boards would review the information again once more information on the positions was studied further. Mr. Tucker said not unless the Boards would like to; the next move would be to implement within this framework and then bring back when moving towards a broad-banding system. Ms. Moynihan said that the Boards would evaluate its effectiveness next year when it is the appropriate time to address the issue again. Mr. Boyd clarified that his vote is contingent upon the long-range plan. Roll was then called, and the motion passed by the following recorder votes: AYES: Mr. Walker, Ms. McKeel, Ms. Moynihan, Ms. Friedman, Mr. Wheeler, Ms. Massie and Mr. Koleszar. NAYS: None. _____________________ Agenda Item No. 3. Discussion: Health/Dental Insurance Contract 2004-2005. Regarding medical benefit costs, Ms. Gerome reported that the joint Board-adopted strategy is to target benefits slightly above market. She said that one of the strengths of the County’s benefit plan is medical insurance – both the plan design and employee premiums. Ms. Gerome provided information from March 17, 2004 (Adjourned Meeting from March 15, 2004) (Page 14) Tom MacKay, Palmer & Cay consultants, on comparative benefits data. She said that the HealthCare Executive Committee met a month ago, and agreed upon objectives for the County’s health care system: maintain the current plan design, offer employees affordable options, maintain reserves of 15 percent, encourage movement to other options. She explained that the high plan is a very “rich plan,” and they have set cost-sharing to encourage the middle and low options. Because the high plan is so “rich,” Ms. Gerome said Palmer & Cay has informed them that that plan might not be available within three years. She said that they also wanted to retain their market competitiveness, and shift to some employee cost-sharing, also consistent with market trends. Ms. Gerome explained that the County has the Southern Health three point of service plans introduced last October: a high-option plan with low co-payments and co-insurance; a middle option with 90 percent co-insurance for more out-of-pocket; and a low option with 80 percent co-insurance and higher co-pays. She explained that there was little movement into the other plans last year. Ms. Gerome said that they were basing budget contributions on a 16 percent increase, with an annual contribution from the Board of $5,345 per employee. She said that when the committee met, they felt it was important to have some employee cost-sharing, and the Board contribution came in at 13.5 percent, a reduction. For claims, Ms. Gerome explained, the County is consistent with national trends, but over a six-year period, they are within the national average of 15 percent, doubling from 1999-2000 to the current year. She said that because the health insurance plan is self-funded, the reserves are very important; if claims exceed the fund, reserves are used to fund them. Ms. Gerome explained that reserves are used to offset claims and as in insurance in the event the plan was terminated, to purchase a new plan. She clarified that the 2,667 figure is enrollment. Mr. Rooker stated that the claims number would be much higher, with several claims per employee. Ms. Gerome noted that the consultant provided information on national data broken up into regions and by sectors. It basically shows that our employee costs for individual coverage under any of our plan options is very competitive. She added that the family cost for the high plan is expensive, and family costs for middle and low were competitive. With that benchmark date, Ms. Gerome said that the plan design was right on market in terms of co-pay with all three plans considered, and the plan design was slightly better than market for prescription co-pays and co-insurance. Ms. Gerome reported that the HealthCare Executive Committee found that the high option plan is “rich,” and may not be offered in future years. In addition, she said that the committee is looking at wellness initiatives in conjunction with Southern Health, and a longer term analysis will look at other wellness options. Regarding Delta Dental, Ms. Gerome reported that the County has the dual option plan – basic and major, with basic providing coverage for preventative services and major covering things like crowns and root canal. She said that two years ago, they went out for RFP bid, and they were able to secure a rate cap for an increase cap of seven and one-half percent this year; an annual Board contribution of $180 is up from last year’s contribution of $160. Ms. Gerome summarized her recommendations: (1) continue with three point of service Southern Health plans; (2) reduce annual Board contributions from earlier budgeted amount to $5,232; (3) have employees cost-share premiums in high-option plan; (4) continue with two Delta Dental options and increase Board contribution to $180 for dental. Mr. Boyd asked if the family share was the same regardless of family size. Ms. Gerome replied that is why the family premium is high. Ms. Suyes noted that there were significant changes last year, and they wanted to minimize changes this year. Mr. Rooker said that over time the County may be better off to have less sharing on the premium side and more sharing on the claims side, and in the future the high-option plan may want to be eliminated. Ms. Suyes said that the plan will probably be eliminated anyway. Ms. Thomas suggested moving people to the middle plans if they do not respond. Ms. Suyes emphasized that they cannot do that without employee permission. Mr. Rooker asked if it was possible to offer medical spending accounts. Ms. Suyes responded that there are a few private-sector businesses going to that, but the complication with that is that some people might ignore health care to keep that money. She thinks they want to wait and see how it results in the health of the employees, let them pilot it for a couple years and then let us look at it. But we are going to look at it. Mr. Rooker said that you cannot go forever at 15 percent increases. Ms. Suyes stated that everyone is in the same boat. Mr. Boyd asked if they had considered a program similar to the City’s where an employee can opt out of the health care program. Ms. Suyes answered that they have talked about it, but have not looked at it. Mr. Boyd asked about a report from Total Rewards. Ms. Gerome responded that the report would probably be available by June. Mr. Bowerman then offered a motion to approve the HealthCare Executive Committee’s recommendations (set out below). Mr. Rooker seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded votes: AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, and Mr. Boyd. March 17, 2004 (Adjourned Meeting from March 15, 2004) (Page 15) NAYS: None Medical: Continue the medical care contract for 2004-2005 with Southern Health. The o recommended budgeted Board contribution for health coverage is $5,232 for the 2004-2005 plan year. The plan options and premiums are indicated in the attachments. Dental: Continue the dental contract for 2004-2005 with Delta Dental of Virginia. The Board o contribution for the dental plan for 2004-2005 is budgeted at $180 annually for full-time employees. Ms. Friedman offered a motion that the School Board accept the HealthCare Executive Committee’s recommendations. Mr. Koleszar seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded votes: AYES: Mr. Koleszar, Ms. Massie, Mr. Wheeler, Ms. Friedman, Ms. Moynihan, Ms. McKeel and Mr. Walker. NAYS: None. _______________ Agenda Item No. 4. From the Board and School Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. At 5:00 p.m., Mr. Boyd offered a motion that the Board of Supervisors go into Closed Meeting pursuant to Section 2.2 – 3711(a) of the Code of Virginia under subsection 1 to consider the appointment of a department head. Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded votes: AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman, and Mr. Boyd. NAYS: None. __________ At 5:50 p.m., the Board reconvened into open session. Motion was offered by Mr. Rooker that the Board certify by a recorded vote that to the best of each Board member's knowledge only public business matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identified in the motion authorizing the closed session were heard, discussed or considered in the closed session. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Boyd. NAYS: None. _______________ Agenda Item No. 5. Adjourn. There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting, which began at 1:00 p.m., was adjourned. ________________________________________ Chairman Approved by the Board of County Supervisors Date: 03/02/2005 Initials: DBM