2004-03-22A
March 22, 2004 (Adjourned Meeting from March 17, 2004)
(Page 1)
An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
March 22, 2004, beginning at 1:00 p.m. in Room 235, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville,
Virginia. This meeting was adjourned from March 17, 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 the staff would begin with the tax relief for the elderly issue, then respond
to any additional questions. He said that information has been distributed regarding options for tax relief.
Mr. Breeden began by reporting that the Department of Finance has attempted to update numbers
on the information provided, reflecting an increase of approximately 12 percent. He said that the cost
included was reported as $256,000, but that figure is $50,495 short. Mr. Breeden stated that the amounts
from December had increased by 20 percent over the prior year. The reduction is essentially a reduction in
revenues, which would impact operations.
Mr. Breeden said that Option #1 leaves net worth and income limits at the same level, and gives
100 percent relief to everyone under $25,000. Mr. Breeden noted that under the current plan, 100 percent
is given for income under $16,000, but that figure decreases for each $1,000 between $16,000 and
$25,000 for an additional cost of $92,000. Option #2, he said, increases gross income up by $5,000 to
$30,000 and raises the net worth up to $100,000 for an additional cost of $120,000.
Ms. Thomas noted that Attachment C (copy on file in Clerk’s office) shows the average of other
localities comparable to Albemarle. Mr. Rooker mentioned that is the option adopted by most localities (12-
14 jurisdictions). Mr. Breeden said that there is a lot of detail that determines the scales used for relief.
Mr. Breeden continued with Option #3 – to raise the income cut-off to $40,000, for an increase of
$225,000. Option #4 sets the cutoff at $50,000, for an increase of $309,000. He explained that there is
close to 38 percent of households in Albemarle County under age 65 that are below that $50,000 limit, who
would have to absorb that.
Mr. Boyd asked how many households were senior citizen households under that $50,000 limit.
Mr. Breeden replied that 11 percent of those over 65 are below the $50,000.
Mr. Breeden emphasized that it is difficult to establish net worth. Mr. Rooker asked how net worth
was determined. Mr. Breeden replied that people have to fill out a financial schedule annually. Mr. Rooker
asked if a tax return was required to verify income. Mr. Breeden replied that some households do not file
tax returns, so bank accounts and statements are used.
Mr. Boyd asked what the impetus is to change the tax relief structure. Mr. Bowerman commented
that there is inequity in the system. It has been about three years since the income/net worth limits were
looked at, and there is concern that with real estate tax increases, there is an increasing burden on fixed-
income households. He mentioned that state legislation pending this year would raise the exclusion
amount on acreage from one to ten acres; currently, net worth includes the home plus one acre. Ms. White
commented that there are a lot of different graduations that can be used with income and net worth.
Ms. Thomas asked how many citizens fall into the under-65, under $50,000 income level. Mr.
Breeden replied that 38 percent of non-senior households fall into this category, and 11 percent of seniors
would. Ms. Thomas said that has always been what slowed the County down, because you are shifting the
burden from the elderly to the rest of the population.
Mr. Dorrier said that he felt that Charlottesville had an older population, but other Board members
indicated that the student and young couple population actually drive the median age down in the City.
Mr. Breeden suggested that if tax relief involved a large reduction in revenue, that it be factored in
before the 60/40 split for schools, otherwise all of that is taken away from General Government. Mr. Tucker
commented that it is fairer to take it off the top.
Mr. Dorrier said that the County should probably move in the direction of what needs to be
achieved, but might not be able to accomplish the goal all at one time.
Mr. Rooker asked when the last adjustment was made. He said that Option #2 would be
reasonable to compensate for inflationary adjustments. Mr. Boyd inquired as to the cost of that option. Mr.
March 22, 2004 (Adjourned Meeting from March 17, 2004)
(Page 2)
Tucker responded that the net cost would be $125,000. Mr. Rooker said the increase would be around
$75,000. Mr. Breeden emphasized that it is totally contingent on where the income and net worth scales
are set.
Mr. Wyant asked how a sliding scale would work. Mr. Breeden replied that anyone under $16,000
currently gets 100 percent relief; that percentage decreases 10 percent for every additional $1,000 in
income. He added that the City scale uses net worth as a factor in reducing the percentage. Mr. Breeden
said one scale stipulates that the smaller the net worth, the more percentage you get at a lower income.
Mr. Rooker commented that there are many others who also need tax relief, such as single
mothers, and he said that it should be adjusted primarily for inflation. Mr. Boyd asked if just the income
option was increased, and not the net worth. Mr. Rooker said it is a bit of a guess, anyway, because it is a
projection. Mr. Boyd questioned whether both income and net worth scales would need to be increased at
the same time. Mr. Rooker responded that it is not something that would be done every year, and there
should be some inflationary adjustment on both sides.
Ms. Thomas said that a 30/90 formula seems to be what other jurisdictions are using.
Mr. Breeden noted that raising the income limit provides relief to existing applicants as well as new
ones; increasing the net worth brings in primarily new people. Board members clarified that going to a
30/90 option would mean a reduction of approximately $100,000 from the budget revenues. Mr. Tucker
said that item would go on the list for final consideration. Ms. White noted that the amount of reduced
revenue depends on the rate of application.
__________
Mr. Tucker stated that the Visitors Center improvements largest cost is roof replacement, and a
copper roof was selected because they currently have a painted metal roof. The City felt strongly about the
type of roof, and because of its location on Route 20 and an Entrance Corridor. He added that asphalt
shingles could be used also. Mr. Rooker said that asphalt shingles could certainly be used for a lesser
cost.
Mr. Tucker mentioned that Monticello and the ARB feel very strongly about the copper roof. He
suggested putting a different figure in the budget to reflect using a less expensive material. Mr. Breeden
said that he did not have a price for asphalt available, but he would work on some options.
__________
Mr. Tucker presented a list of roads included in the revenue-sharing with VDOT. It is hard to move
them around once you have approved and agreed to fund and match VDOT’s revenue-sharing. Mr.
Rooker noted that Georgetown Road is on the list, but never got any money.
Ms. Thomas asked if the County’s “match” is drawing interest somewhere. Mr. Tucker replied that
the funds are being invested, and only when the state bids and calls on the money does the County have to
pay it. Mr. Breeden stated that the County has a meeting with VDOT in May to clarify timetables for
payment, noting that they have already been paid for some County projects.
__________
Mr. Foley presented Fire & Rescue Advisory Board recommendations. He clarified that the Board’s
total request is $955,000 to totally fund operating costs, but the County already funds their operating costs.
Mr. Foley noted that the County is currently paying 60 to 70 percent of operating costs, depending on the
station, and this budget just ensures that amount is 85 percent for each station.
Mr. Bowerman said that the volunteer funding of $955,000 seems overstated. Mr. Foley explained
that it would cost the County $328,000 to get to 85 percent. He said that there is an additional $100,000
contingency requested, which he will elaborate on.
Mr. Bowerman said that it seems this will give every station more except one or two stations. What
the County is trying to do is to make sure everybody’s needs – as they told us they are – get funded at 85
percent, and that is what this proposal does.
Ms. Thomas asked about the $100,000, noting that that raises the funding from 85 percent to 100
percent. Mr. Foley further explained that every station is getting approximately $84,000 from the County,
whether they need it or not. He elaborated, stating that if the total operating costs are $955,000 and the
County currently pays $500,000 towards that amount, all the County is doing is adding to that one-half
million to get everybody up to 85 percent of what they need. Mr. Foley added that the $328,000 is the net
increase. He added that this is being paid from the capital fund, which will mean other projects will have to
be shifted.
Ms. Thomas noted that when she met with the Firefighters Association they agreed with the
administration’s request.
Mr. Foley reminded the Board that there were five positions requested, but this budget
recommends funding two positions. He explained that one of the requested positions was for Scottsville,
and it is the other four positions that are the greatest concern to the firefighters. Mr. Foley said that the
County is not recommending a Stony Point firefighter or a Captain for supervision. It is just a matter of what
the right timing would be for that, but the staff is recommending that Seminole and Earlysville have those
March 22, 2004 (Adjourned Meeting from March 17, 2004)
(Page 3)
two additional positions – one each – to allow the County to continue covering 12 hours per day as opposed
to 10 hours per day. He added that the shifts are 12 hours per day, but not at all stations.
Mr. Boyd stated that when he and Ms. Thomas met with Firefighters Association, they indicated it
would take five people to staff 12 hours per day at all stations. Mr. Foley replied that staff meant the three
stations in the north which have career staff. Mr. Boyd said there would be some stations that are only
staffed 10 hours per day with three people. Mr. Foley responded that would only be Stony Point, and they
have three now. They are in a rural area, they have a low call volume, and staff is suggesting it be a 10-
hour day coverage instead of a 12-hour day coverage. Mr. Boyd asked if it would take three people to run
that station 12 hours per day. Mr. Foley replied that it takes four now to get coverage, with three during the
day. He clarified that each station has four now, and adding one to each site allows three to be on duty for
12 hours per day.
Mr. Bowerman commented that the bottom line is that even the way this is proposed, the County is
still three firefighters short of meeting their request. Mr. Foley replied, “Yes.” He said that one is the Stony
Point, one is the Captain, and one is the Scottsville person.
Mr. Foley clarified that item #2 on the Board’s list covers all the needs in Scottsville for career staff
to run that station 24 hours per day seven days per week. He said that career firefighters would say that
they also need additional staff, and the Board needs to consider how to staff in the rural areas. This is the
biggest concern that the firefighters have – if the County tries to cover 12 hours, and send one fireman out
with an engine, we are putting him at risk, so the County will have to cut hours back by those two hours for it
to work.
Mr. Rooker said this is not talking about cutting back further, instead maintaining status quo. Mr.
Foley said the County needs to be in a position where we do not try to cover 12 hours and have one
firefighter go out there alone.
Mr. Dan Eggleston, Director of Fire and Rescue, said that is what they are doing right now.
Firefighters are working with the volunteer chiefs to try to solicit additional volunteers for more coverage, but
that has not worked.
Mr. Dorrier stated that the Scottsville District is one of the biggest districts in the County, and has
high concentrations of poor and elderly. He thinks that is a different situation for Scottsville since it has such
a far distance to travel, with 20 miles to get to the hospital, if somebody has a major heart attack or
something. There is greater risk to those people. He does think that there are some considerations that
should be based on that. Mr. Bowerman said that the County would be “hard pressed” to put Scottsville
over any other district.
Mr. Rooker recalled funding Scottsville for several EMS positions, in response to that need. Mr.
Foley clarified that the Board funded three to have two on duty at all times. Mr. Rooker commented that
Scottsville may be one of the best covered rural areas. Ms. Thomas noted that they have 25 percent of
calls going out of the County. Mr. Dorrier said that Albemarle needs to ask for help from surrounding
counties.
Mr. Eggleston stated that it is possible the Scottsville area could be served out of a development
area like Monticello, and still meet the Board’s desire to serve urban areas while meeting the volunteers’
need to serve rural areas with medical personnel. Mr. Foley commented that pulls them out of the urban
area, and also the County would have a hard time meeting its 13-minute response time. Under certain
circumstances, he thinks that is a possibility the staff could try to address.
Mr. Rooker said that the coverage situation is complex, and the Board looked to staff to come up
with a recommendation that made sense.
Mr. Bowerman mentioned that he would be meeting with the Advisory Board on Wednesday.
Mr. Rooker emphasized that last year Scottsville made a strong case for EMS personnel, which the
Board funded, and that is now in the baseline budget.
Mr. Wyant asked if there are enough personnel to cover everything. Mr. Bowerman responded that
they cannot run every call. Mr. Wyant said that the County needs to look at Stony Point as an example.
Mr. Bowerman explained that Stony Point, Earlysville and Seminole were the first stations to ask for
help. Scottsville did not want the County’s help, neither did Rivanna. He said that the County was so
interested in having calls run from the three stations, the Board funded paid officers there. The Board pretty
much made the unpromised, but they think agreement that when they wanted people, we would give them
to them. It is very expensive to move into this. He added that the County now has over 20 paid personnel,
and five years ago there were none. The Board wants to help, but we have got to do it on the basis of who
is getting the calls, and what is really in our Comprehensive Plan. The Board does not promise five-minute
responses in the rural areas, it is fifteen.
Mr. Wyant said that with Stony Point, there are not that many fire calls, but there are a significant
number of rescue calls. Mr. Foley commented that Stony Point runs a “First Responder” program out of
that station, and Scottsville has a separate rescue squad. He added that 70 percent of calls are EMS
related.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the City responds to Scottsville, along with Monticello station. Mr. Foley
March 22, 2004 (Adjourned Meeting from March 17, 2004)
(Page 4)
replied that according to the contract of a year and a half ago, any response outside the urban area around
the city, they stop responding to unless it is a structure fire.
Mr. Bowerman agreed that the issues of personnel coverage are complicated, and there must be a
balance with volunteer coverage.
Mr. Foley emphasized that there would be future in-depth discussions on fire and rescue.
Mr. Tucker noted that the Board had previously agreed to go to 100 percent operations funding, but
the Scottsville request was left for today’s meeting.
Mr. Rooker asked if the Scottsville request was combined with the northside request. Mr. Foley
clarified that Scottsville is asking for five additional paid people to be able to provide 24-hour coverage. Mr.
Rooker replied that the County does not provide 24-hour coverage in the rural areas. Mr. Bowerman noted
that even Seminole is volunteer at night.
Mr. Foley clarified that this budget recommends that in the rural area, the Board would be providing
the same amount of support to Stony Point as provided to Scottsville. In Scottsville, the County is providing
10 hours of coverage for rescue, and in Stony Point, we are providing 10 hours of coverage for fire. In a
rescue squad, it takes three people to get two to run that 10-hour shift. In a fire station, it takes four to get
three to run a 10-hour shift. He added that in urban areas, it takes five people to get 12-hour coverage.
Mr. Rooker commented that if coverage is increased in one area, it must be looked at throughout
the rural areas, unless there is a dramatic difference in call volume.
Mr. Foley said that other localities have gone to a rescue component before fire, but in Albemarle
many who serve are cross-trained at an Advanced Life Support level.
Mr. Rooker said that U.Va. Medical School students have signed on with Charlottesville Rescue in
the past, and asked if Scottsville communicates with them to try to get volunteers. Mr. Eggleston replied
that they do have some volunteers from U.Va., but those students primarily serve in the urban areas. Mr.
Foley said that the northern station will be designed so that students can actually live there. He mentioned
that they do that in Maryland.
Mr. Bowerman commented that Albemarle has a very efficient fire and rescue system, and there
are going to be more and more direct costs associated with that.
Mr. Wyant stated that it may be possible to recruit from other counties for Scottsville, especially the
counties that station serves. Mr. Eggleston said that they do recruit there.
Ms. Thomas asked about the $100,000 contingency. Mr. Foley responded that there may be
fundraising expenses that have driven operating costs up, and that needs further review. All of them are
getting more money. In fact, the busiest stations are getting a pretty large increase. So, in terms of the
ability to take care of their expenses and not have to do fundraising to pay for the light bills, the County feels
like we are making a pretty significant contribution this year, and waiting that year to take a look at the rest
of the expenditures is a good decision.
Mr. Eggleston reported that the 85 percent proposal that the County Executive’s office put forth has
been well-received by Fire and Rescue volunteer chiefs.
Mr. Dorrier wondered if not funding all rural areas completely could be used as leverage from other
localities. Mr. Tucker said Fluvanna does contribute a small amount. At Mr. Dorrier’s suggestion, Mr.
Tucker said that they do have information on how many calls go out to other localities.
Mr. Rooker asked about the mechanic line-item in this budget, recalling that firefighters stated last
year that contract repair was more expensive than hiring a maintenance person. Mr. Eggleston replied that
the County bus shops perform a very small part of the repairs, but a lot of it is contracted out to vendors.
The problem they have had throughout this year is a lot of the stations use a preferred vendor, and they
really want to go to a single contract. They are having to educate a lot of the volunteer chiefs on the
process and the County is getting a lot of resistance because there are some preferred mechanics that they
like to use.
Mr. Rooker asked how much the total maintenance is costing each year. Mr. Eggleston responded
that the cost is $100,000 including labor and materials. Mr. Rooker noted that there may be repairs that
have to be outsourced anyway. Mr. Eggleston added that Charlottesville does, and one person might not
be able to service the entire County fleet.
__________
Mr. Tucker reported that for the ACE program, the staff recommends using carry-over funds along
with the $350,000 from tourism. Staff still feels that there will be a balance at the end of the next fiscal year
based on our processing history and so forth of about $334,000. He added that if the process is sped up,
there may be a slight deficit or a break-even. Mr. Tucker said that he has told the ACE Committee that one-
time funds could be used to cover any gaps that result from higher property appraisals.
Ms. Thomas asked about the $915,000 total expenditures, and wondered if that covered applicants
that came into the program in summer 2003. She stated that this budget only provides $334,000, and that
March 22, 2004 (Adjourned Meeting from March 17, 2004)
(Page 5)
figure makes it look as though the County is not supporting the program at the level it has in the past. She
does not want to hurt the program by the perception that all that is in it is $350,000 of tourism money. For
the ones that come in this summer, the Board does not want to tell them that the only ones who can apply
are ones that have tourism value, but that fact is what it is looking like here. Mr. Tucker said that item is on
the list.
Mr. Breeden clarified that they have tried to separate regular appropriation of general fund monies
versus tourism. He explained that they would use up all the tourism money, and the money left is general
fund money that could be used for any type of project. He emphasized that this plan makes the
assumption that all tourism money is used, plus the $350,000 from the next budget year. Realistically, the
applications that are going to be received this summer or the fall or whatever won’t be paid out until FY ‘06,
most likely.” He added that in 2006, the County would probably have to go back to a $1 million.
Mr. Rooker said that there is about $1 million spent on the program each year, and there is just a
one-time lag where there is carry-over. He thinks it is a mistake to be fooling ourselves to say that the cost
of this program is $350,000, because next year it is clearly going to be $1 million. He added that he thinks
the County should fund it somewhere in between the $350,000 and $1 million this year. Mr. Rooker
emphasized that he is not certain that program participants are aware of the total amount available anyway,
and he suggested putting the $1 million figure in the ad. He said that he finds it “imprudent” to pocket what
is being saved this year at the expense of future years when it is needed.
Mr. Breeden mentioned that this has been funded from the balance of one-time monies anyway.
Whether you fund it now or fund it later, it is going to have the same impact on the fund balance.
Mr. Boyd said that it would be helpful to have a five-year forecast. Mr. Rooker responded that it is a
million a year. Mr. Boyd commented that dealing with perception is a different matter. Ms. Thomas said the
ad is the way to deal with that.
Mr. Boyd asked if the County funded it with more money from the fund balance, if that creates a
situation of underfunding for reserves. Mr. Tucker replied that he did not think so. Mr. Breeden agreed.
__________
Ms. White said that for the Registrar position, the staff does not know about the difficulty of the
work, how that work has changed in light of new legislation, or how they compare to other localities. She
emphasized that the staffing levels have changed over the last seven years.
Ms. Thomas explained that the 4.6 FTEs include .6 out of the DMV lobby – required by 1996
Motor/Voter law, noting that that job has been scattered and responsibilities have been added, including
servicing voter registration drives. She said that the one person of the 4.6 replaces what was a totally
volunteer electoral Board member.
Ms. White mentioned that the .6 person still helps register voters, even though they are based at
DMV. She said that the County has recommended against it.
Mr. Rooker said that he has spoken with several people on the Electoral Board, and they describe
the situation as bad. He asked for comparative information from other counties, such as what was provided
for elderly tax relief. That is the only way he knows to make a valid comparison.
Mr. Dorrier said that he has no doubt the workload has increased over the last ten years.
Mr. Rooker emphasized that more information is needed to make a decision about staffing.
Mr. Tucker mentioned that there is an Assistant Registrar position on the list, and he said that the
absentee clerk could be removed. Mr. Rooker asked why that was a one-time expense. Ms. White
responded that that was for presidential elections only.
__________
Ms. White reported that it is possible that the County might incur a $250,000 expense for group life
insurance, if the General Assembly doesn’t fund it through VRS.
Mr. Rooker said that in 2000, a minority recommendation was for the VRS to get out of the stock
market, and what the County is currently funding are primarily the losses they had because they did not
move out of the market at that point.
__________
Ms. White provided information about Library baseline costs, presenting a chart on library health
insurance costs and bookmobile expenses funded by carry-over monies. She said that the third item is an
increase in reference service share, which has gone up significantly when the City’s share has dropped.
Mr. Boyd asked how that was allocated. Mr. John Halliday, Director of JMRL, addressed the
Board, and introduced Bob Miller from Scottsville, Tim Tolson from Crozet, and Tony Townsend from
Earlysville. He thanked the Board for allowing them to speak about the library budget.
Mr. Halliday said their goal, shared by the County, is to make the library services the best they can
be. He stated that they are interested in the overall good of the County, and feel that there is a problem
with the budgeting process. For the last three years, Mr. Tucker’s budgets have had shortfalls for library
March 22, 2004 (Adjourned Meeting from March 17, 2004)
(Page 6)
services. The shortfalls in the last three years have been surprises to the Board of Supervisors, and they do
not like to see anybody caught off-guard, nor do they want to see any surprises in the budget process.
Mr. Halliday explained that he feels the Library Board spends a few months developing what they
think is a reasonable proposal for library services, then it is sent to the County, then an e-mail from the
County arrives asking specific questions about the budget. He continued, stating that Mr. Tucker then
presents the budget to the Board, reflecting an increase similar to what Charlottesville offers – three
percent. Mr. Halliday stressed that that process is not reasonable, and the libraries become aware that
there are going to be cuts.
Mr. Rooker asked how they get the idea something is going to be cut. Mr. Halliday replied that for
example, this year, the budget will be $63,000 short of what is needed just to maintain services. So the
Library Board’s only option is to come to your public hearing and say we are short. The question the public
immediately ask, especially the newspapers, is hat does that mean. Then the Board has to give examples
of how they would make up that deficit.
Mr. Halliday explained that last year it was the bookmobile, and this year it was Crozet and
Scottsville because of the library’s regional approach, as mandated by jurisdictional percentages. He said
that in the regional agreement, the bookmobile, Crozet and Scottsville are the only “local” costs that can be
cut. Mr. Halliday stated that Charlottesville City’s budget does fully fund libraries at the current level, with
their three percent increase. He said that three years ago, the deficit was $25,000, last year it was $50,000,
and this year it is $63,000.
Mr. Halliday emphasized that one problem with the process is that Mr. Tucker’s budget is sent to
the Board before errors are caught. For example, he noted that last year’s decision to use $23,000 of
reserve funds to make ends meet is not reflected in the current budget, so Mr. Tucker’s increase for the
library is really three percent minus $23,000. Mr. Halliday emphasized that the library is a huge part of
outside agencies, and it would be helpful to be involved in the budgeting process.
Mr. Halliday commented that he did not feel it makes sense to develop the library’s budget along
with Charlottesville. In 1972 when the regional library agreement was set up, he said, the City’s population
was 38,000 and so was the County’s. Mr. Halliday said that the County population is now 88,000, where the
city’s has remained the same, and the cost is supposed to be based on use. Every year County citizens are
making a higher percentage use of public library services, and Charlottesville’s stay about the same or are
even going down.
Mr. Halliday explained that the three percent increase from Charlottesville is actually $10,000 more
than they need to meet basic services, and the County’s is $63,000 less.
Mr. Rooker asked how the reference share is determined. Mr. Halliday replied that two months out
of the year, the library surveys reference users and asks them what jurisdiction they are from. The rest of
library services are based on circulation, which is kept track by the computer system – who lives where. He
said that there is a two-year average used.
Mr. Rooker stated that it seems the County’s reference share could be built into the budget process
as the population increases each year. Ms. White said that it has been more gradual, but this year was a
fluke.
Mr. Halliday said that the County figure is around 43 percent, and explained that the Central Library
reference is used for that. With general circulation, tracking is done by computer as to who checks out
books and where they live. He mentioned that use of Central and Gordon Avenue is used more by
Albemarle County residents than Charlottesville.
Mr. Bowerman asked to what extent the County was involved in the Northside Library funding a few
years ago when there was a shortfall. Mr. Halliday responded that Albemarle pays 80 percent of those
costs; the City pays 20 percent at that library. Ms. White noted that that includes the six percent for Greene.
Mr. Halliday re-explained that each jurisdiction pays for its citizens’ use of library services; Louisa,
Nelson, and Greene pay 100 percent of their local shares. In Charlottesville and Albemarle, the costs are
divided up by contract between those two jurisdictions based on the actual use. He commented that from
the standpoint, the agreement is “fair and reasonable.”
Mr. Halliday said that it would make sense to divide the way the budget is viewed, with Albemarle
and Charlottesville looking at their part. Albemarle has grown so much over the years that it is time to say
“maybe we should not do the same thing as Charlottesville does”. He recommended sharing the budget
with the library before it goes public, and separating the localities to pay their fair share. Mr. Halliday
clarified that the budget is for operations.
Mr. Rooker asked if the library sets pay for personnel, and whether they are working within the
three percent increase. Mr. Halliday replied they used the same consulting firm used by the City, and they
try to stay close to the City’s structure. Their medical insurance is estimated to increase by 18 percent next
year.
Ms. White emphasized that part of this is a “catch-up budget,” because of level funding years and
slight increase years.
Mr. Wyant asked why the County’s share wasn’t reflected last year. Ms. White replied that every
March 22, 2004 (Adjourned Meeting from March 17, 2004)
(Page 7)
agency last year was funded less because of shortfall. Mr. Halliday explained that last year the library was
short, and the County met the library halfway on the gap.
Mr. Dorrier commented that many people who use the library do not check out books, but just use
computers, reference materials, etc. He added that in outlying areas, the library is often a central point in
the community.
Mr. Boyd asked if the $130,000 figure in the budget was based on the use allocation. Ms. White
replied that that is what would be needed to fund baseline costs based on the County’s agreed-upon share.
Mr. Rooker said it seems “pretty reasonable” to him, and mentioned the possibility of moving the downtown
th
library. Mr. Tucker stated that on April 7, the Library Board would be coming before the Supervisors to
discuss that option.
Mr. Townsend said that the Northside Library has been operating on a very tight budget that forces
some library employees to do work at home on their own time.
Mr. Tucker said that in many cases, the County tries to fund agencies comparably with the City, and
it may be time to move away from that.
Mr. Rooker emphasized that the library funding works on a formula.
Mr. Miller from the Scottsville Library said that if the County continues to have a shortfall, Crozet
and Scottsville would have to bear the brunt of the deficit. Theoretically, the library would have to cut
$32,000 from its operating budget. That means closing the library, basically, about a day and a half a
week. Mr. Miller agreed with Mr. Dorrier that the library is a social center, and circulation does not reflect
everything that goes on in the library, noting that the James River Book Club and Scottsville Chamber of
Commerce meet at the Scottsville Library. He added that there are poetry classes, art classes, and school
and senior visitors.
Ms. Thomas mentioned that you can order books online and pick them up at your local branch.
Mr. Halliday pointed out that the library is free to use, unless it is after normal hours.
Mr. Tucker said that the Central Library charges for custodial services, adding that the total library
request is on the Board’s list of line-item considerations.
__________
Mr. Tucker went through the list of items, noting that they have left the recommended list open so
the Board can determine what they wish to fund. He said that the $300,000 contingency fund remains, and
if the tax rate is .74, the Board would have $2.4 million in ’04 unallocated funds. He mentioned that some of
the fund balance was used for ’05 for vehicle repairs and registrar funds, leaving $1.5 in one-time funds.
Mr. Tucker said that several items were not originally accounted for – including a two percent adjustment to
the salary scale ($30,000); a three percent increase for the Juvenile Court Assessment Center ($933); the
Children Youth and Family Services ($3,700); MACAA ($21,000) program review error; and Soil and Water
Conservation ($2,400).
Mr. Tucker said that the voting machines would be reimbursed at $51,000. He stated that a one-
penny local share would provide $400,000 in recurring money and one-time monies of $500,000. When
you reduce the tax rate, there is a loss of revenue for the current fiscal year. Mr. Tucker stated that if that
money is put back in and the rate remains as it is (.76), all items on the full list would be funded, if the Board
chose to fund them.
In response to Mr. Boyd’s question about how the reduced income would be absorbed, Mr.
Breeden said that the County would bear the brunt of it this fiscal year, and the following year it would follow
the 60/40 split with school.
Mr. Boyd asked if the Board could pass a reduction in the tax rate effective for the next fiscal year.
Mr. Tucker responded that when the rate is adopted, it is done on a calendar year, not a fiscal year.
Mr. Davis commented that it is legally possible to adopt a split tax rate. It is an administrative
nightmare for Finance. He added that there is a mechanism in the State Code where the County could
switch from a calendar tax year to a fiscal tax year, which would allow the County to start the tax rate
change July 1, 2004.
Mr. Boyd asked if there was any reason not to have it that way, as it would make more sense from
an accounting perspective. Mr. Breeden said that it is permissible to shift to fiscal years, but you are talking
about major amendments to County Code sections that all are built around an annual calendar.
Ms. Thomas noted that mortgages were also hard to change, and that was a major issue.
Mr. Rooker commented that he had proposed a two-cent reduction in the fall, but at that time the
County only had the revenue side of the budget. The revenues looked pretty good, and it appeared to him
that based on those revenue projections since that time, the County has had the VRS rate increase that is
basically in excess of the proposed tax reduction. That is an expense of about $3 million that the County did
not know about at the time. Mr. Tucker clarified that that amount is $2.4 million.
March 22, 2004 (Adjourned Meeting from March 17, 2004)
(Page 8)
Mr. Rooker added that the County would have been able to fund the budget in a reasonable matter
had the increase not happened. He emphasized that there are several essential services that would not be
funded if the tax reduction were approved, such as additional police officers and fire and rescue needs. A
lot of that is funding, in effect, what we are putting off. All you are doing is putting off an expense, in some
cases, that you are going to have next year. He added that many of the items in the budget have already
been cut down.
Mr. Rooker said he thinks to underfund this budget despite the fact that he wanted to see a tax
decrease would not be prudent to do today. In addition, there is a state budget that is not settled. The state
has four budgets out there now floating around that impact the County in different ways. It is unlikely that
when the Board vote on the tax rate that the State will have even finalized the budget. We do not know
what we are going to get from the state government, nor do we know what the schools are going to get at
this point.
Mr. Rooker pointed out that just the County share of the Social Services budget has gone from 19
percent to 26 percent over a five-year period. We are seeing the state basically underfunding and pushing
the cost of those services back to the localities in increasing amounts.” He concluded that he supports
leaving the tax rate where it is.
Mr. Boyd stated that he sees it differently, citing a nine percent increase in spending. He asked if
there were a way to determine other revenue sources instead of just property taxes. Mr. Boyd said that he
served on the School Board for four years and their spending is out of whack with what comparable
communities are doing other places. He presented information on per-student spending from other schools
that are doing just as well as Albemarle in test results. They are putting the emphasis on their teachers and
the emphasis on their salaries, which he tried to do for four years and was always outvoted. There is more
interest on new initiatives and new techniques and new ideas and things than to put the money in teachers’
salaries. A ten to eleven percent increase for schools concerns him. It is tough to sit here and say that
more money for education is not good, but he would like to see that system be more efficient with what they
have got before the Board continues funding it.”
Mr. Rooker said that in order to reconcile that with the schools, there would need to be open
th
discussions about the split. Mr. Boyd stated that Albemarle is 17 on a list of 138 schools on per pupil
spending. He can guarantee Albemarle is not at that level with teachers’ compensation. That is what
seems out of whack to him. Mr. Rooker responded that 65 percent of Albemarle School’s budget goes to
compensation.
Mr. Boyd said that six years ago, the Board of Supervisors approached the School Board about
formalizing the split, but the School Board hired an attorney to fight the split and it did not move forward.
The Board can control the split, and it is no agreement. It is just what the Supervisors decide to do. Mr.
Rooker commented that it would be difficult to achieve that this year, and the School Board has already put
together their budget.
Mr. Tucker responded that after the School Board finds out what their allocation will be, then they
balance their budget.
Ms. Thomas said that this budget is nine percent more than last year, and asked Mr. Boyd if 4.4
percent was more acceptable, as this year’s budget is more of a “catch-up budget.” She said that the two
previous years’ budgets had 4.5 percent increases.
Mr. Boyd asked what the percentage of growth in the County is. Ms. Thomas replied that the
County is growing at two percent, and inflation is growing about 2.5 percent per year. She added that
County department budgets have declined 2.5 percent.
Mr. Rooker stated that Planning and Zoning Departments are not overstaffed, especially in light of
master planning. Those are new initiatives that the Board decided to undertake at the County level. He
added that taking the average departmental expenses of other counties, we are certainly not on the high
end of the amount we spend per capita for governmental services, and obviously our tax rate at 76 cents by
statewide standards is not excessive.
Mr. Wyant asked about the CIP. Mr. Tucker said that the CIP is funded for this year, and next year
the CIP will be reviewed more closely. Ms. Thomas commented that the CIP funding from the County
seemed low. Ms. White explained that the County transfer to CIP seems less because of comparisons to
prior years’ “actuals,” which included end-of-year transfers. Mr. Breeden said that the budget amount for
CIP is more than the prior year’s budget.
Mr. Rooker noted that the County has used $3 million out of $5 million in CIP reserves this year.
You cannot rob future budgets forever to pay for current expenditures. If anything, we need to try to build
reserves during years when revenues look pretty good. He does not think the County has adequately done
that the last couple years.
Mr. Dorrier commented that this seems to be a year the County is trying to make up for areas that
have been lacking – police, fire, mental health services, drug court. He thinks that is money well spent,
because it is going to save money in the long run. He emphasized that the state budget cannot be counted
on. Mr. Dorrier expressed concern about the 30 percent figure of eligible retiring teachers, and the
associated costs of paying retirement and recruiting new teachers. The County has some overwhelming
needs. He said that the state is fumbling around with their budget, and the County should do better.
March 22, 2004 (Adjourned Meeting from March 17, 2004)
(Page 9)
Mr. Bowerman commented that the County is barely able to keep up with growth with the current
budget, much less anticipating future needs.
Ms. Thomas said that there are many items that do not officially show up as unfunded mandates
from the state, but are required of counties. She commented that she heard from political insiders that if
the House budget passes, it would cost the County 1.6 cents, and if the Senate budget passes, it would
save the County 4.2 cents.
Mr. Wyant stated that he had hoped to keep what Mr. Tucker had proposed, but he does hear a lot
of comments in his district about taxes. He expressed concern about the lack of state funding, and he
hears from his constituents the need for services in the rural areas. Mr. Wyant stressed that the Board
needs to consider the long-term impact of everything they do, noting the public works department as an
example because of the level of service expected from the community. He also cited concern about the
school budget, but acknowledged that there is not really time to go through it line by line. Mr. Wyant said
that increased assessments cost people money out of pocket. He will vote for the current tax rate to
remain, even though he would like to see it reduced.
Ms. Thomas mentioned that solid waste disposal is another increasing need, and she wants the
public to know that almost a penny out of taxes covers that. That is just one more reason why the County’s
tax rate is where it is.
Mr. Boyd pointed out that the state budget may have an additional $3.5 million for Albemarle
Schools, and asked if that was a windfall for schools. He said that the school budget has remained flush
with money, whereas emergency services have been shorted and budgets have been cut. He can see that
even more vividly now when he looks at these numbers and that is something that has been concerning him
as he goes through this process. He noted that there have been millions in end of year school surpluses
that are quickly spent before having to reappropriate that money. They are not spending their money wisely
on teachers and in the classroom.
Mr. Wyant commented that this Board cannot micro-manage the School Board.
Mr. Bowerman said Mr. Boyd was on the School Board and could have changed it. Mr. Boyd
responded that he voted against the budgets and got criticized for it. They were not allocating to the right
people. The money was not being spent on the teachers. Our School Board is not stepping up to the plate
and setting teacher salaries and classroom spending as a top priority. He added that a majority of the
Board voted to shut down a committee he served on to look at comparisons to other school systems.
Mr. Tucker stated that every year, whatever the funding is the County offers, their request is always
$2 to 2.5 million more.
Ms. Thomas said that the more the County urbanizes, the smaller the percentage of total budget
will go to the schools, and people will probably criticize it.
Mr. Boyd emphasized that you cannot ignore the fact that the County is growing much faster than
school enrollment.
Mr. Wyant commented that citizens need to be educated on solid waste disposal.
Mr. Tucker noted that on the long-range expenditure and revenue side, there will be financial
advisors coming in to look at five-year projections, including solid waste. He said that for the next two to
three years, the big costs for remediation would be incurred. Once those years are through, the County will
be in good shape. Mr. Rooker stressed that as an example of why reserves are needed.
Mr. Breeden pointed out that if the schools get huge increases from the state, it might be a good
time to revisit the 60/40 split.
Mr. Tucker said that he would like for there to be a provision to only fund based on actual student
enrollment, as the state does. The Board funds their budget based on their projections, and if the
projections are low, they’ve got a windfall.
Mr. Rooker mentioned that the schools also have unfunded mandates, such as SOLs. They do not
necessarily net the increase in revenues that a ‘gross’ view of the numbers makes it appear.
Mr. Boyd said that the school system “grossly overestimates what they need to cover these
unfunded mandates,” which is why they are out of line with other counties who have the same mandates to
deal with. He read from audit reports that showed undesignated fund surpluses of $4 and $5 million.
Mr. Wyant said that the real issue is how the Board of Supervisors handles this matter with the
School Board.
(A 3:50 p.m., the Board took a recess and reconvened at 4:00 p.m.)
Mr. Boyd asked if the Board funded everything they wanted on the list, if it would only be $19,000
short. Mr. Tucker responded that that is correct, but that figure would change with the revised Tax Relief for
the Elderly. He announced that the new number is $59,236, noting that the schools will have to absorb
some of that reduction also.
March 22, 2004 (Adjourned Meeting from March 17, 2004)
(Page 10)
Referring to the handout by staff, Mr. Rooker said that he is comfortable with what is included in the
“yellow and blue,” as they have spent a lot of time going over the numbers in detail leading up to now.
Ms. Thomas asked how much should be left in reserves.
Mr. Tucker said that it is not a good idea to leave the reserves at $0, but in the event of
emergencies, one-time money could be used and paid for the following year. He commented that the other
new resources/development fees currently shows no dollar amount, and explained that if the maximum
decal charge was instituted, then that would add $150,000 as a revenue source; development fee
increases would not add a significant amount.
Ms. Thomas said that the decal does not count as a tax when you itemize, and was informed that it
cannot be made a tax.
Mr. Dorrier commented that he does not know if the Board should ‘sock it’ to the County citizen by
way of decals,” and suggested delays in hiring instead. Mr. Bowerman said that that had already been
done. Mr. Tucker stated that it does not go away, but just gets put off on another year. Mr. Bowerman
asked if things could be rearranged in the “yellow and blue” part of the budget.
Mr. Rooker responded that there may be single items that could be debated, but over the course of
the budgeting process, all of the items were reviewed and found to be important.
Mr. Dorrier noted that the state should soon reach a decision on its budget, and that may improve
the overall picture.
Mr. Tucker said that local governments would not fare as well as schools, and there is a possibility
that 599 funds may be lost.
Mr. Boyd asked about the Neighborhood Model Planner position, noting that it might not be needed
right away. Mr. Tucker replied that this person would be working on getting downtown Crozet going, and
would do the same for the urban area. He explained that because the master plan for Crozet is wrapping
up, the timing of hiring that person is important.
Mr. Boyd asked what the $50,000 to the Piedmont Housing Authority is for. Ms. White responded
that that fund is to begin an affordable housing revolving loan program, so there is $50,000 in recurring
funds and $150,000 in one-time funds, and $50,000 each year over the next three years so that there is
eventually a $200,000 recurring funds. She said that the Housing Advisory Committee is coming together
and “this is the County’s part of coming to the table” as far as a revolving loan fund.
Ms. Thomas stated that the Board voted to get behind affordable housing. Mr. Bowerman said that
the best way to provide a down payment is a revolving loan fund. Mr. Boyd stated that the private sector or
philanthropic organization should deal with it, not the County. Ms. Thomas said that when she met with
developers, they wanted to be sure that the County was serious about affordable housing. Board members
emphasized that the money is a loan that would be coming back. Ms. White pointed out that the money is
going to be used in tandem with developers. Mr. Rooker commented that developers do not feel that they
should absorb the cost of affordable housing.
Mr. Boyd said he thought the additional $100,000 was not going to fire and rescue, but the 85
percent figure was going to be used. Mr. Rooker emphasized that the forgiveness of debt to stations is not
an out-of-pocket expense.
Ms. Thomas went back to her original question of how much reserve they should have. Mr. Tucker
said that whatever is leftover after everything is funded is what the reserves are. He suggested going
through the budget and seeing what might be left. Mr. Rooker said he would like to build reserves instead
of deplete them.
Ms. Thomas asked about the Loss Control position, and suggested that not be funded. She noted
that the absentee clerk would not need to be funded, although that is a one-time expense.
Mr. Dorrier said that he believes the voting position should be kept in, since it is a one-time position.
Other Board members said that Ms. Harris had indicated she would not need that position if the other
regular long-term position were funded. Mr. Dorrier agreed.
Mr. Rooker asked if the other library items would be necessary if the $63,000 were funded. Ms.
White replied that they are new initiatives, and the library baseline is the $63,000. She added that the
reason the County recommends funding the other initiatives is because of the growth in the outlying
branches.
Ms. Thomas said that all of the new subdivisions in Crozet justify the need for additional funding for
that library, as it adds to the community and keeps people from getting on Route 250 to come to
Charlottesville. The Board agreed to fund both the Crozet and Northside initiatives.
Mr. Tucker stated that the next item is the Assistant Registrar. Mr. Rooker recalled that they were
going to get comparative information before deciding on that.
March 22, 2004 (Adjourned Meeting from March 17, 2004)
(Page 11)
Mr. Tucker asked about the Commonwealth’s Attorneys office funding. Mr. Rooker asked about
the total needed to bring that office up to par. Mr. Foley said that the total amount is $68,000, but could be
done over two years.
Mr. Rooker commented that the Sheriff’s office is in the same situation. Mr. Dorrier emphasized
the importance of funding crime fighting and prevention, and commented that he did not believe it was fair
to pay new hires more than veteran employees. He asked what percentage the County would be paying of
those salaries. Mr. Tucker said he would have to get that figure. Mr. Rooker commented that it is just
another way the state is squeezing localities.
Ms. Thomas said that she is opposed to keeping the Sheriff and Commonwealth’s Attorney items in
the budget. These are additional numbers to what is already in the County Executive’s budget, and she has
not seen them putting pressure on Richmond to do what Richmond ought to be doing for these offices.
Mr. Dorrier commented that he has been in that job, and trying to deal with the State Compensation
Board is “like trying to get your hands around a cloud.” He added that it takes years of work and lots of
stamina, and takes time away from your job. Mr. Breeden commented that associations representing those
offices have made strides to improve those salaries, but it has been extremely challenging. Ms. Thomas
noted that VACO asked that the Compensation Board be erased from the books. Mr. Foley explained that
the number for the Commonwealth’s Attorney office does reflect conversations he has had with that office
regarding appropriate scale and timing. Mr. Rooker pointed out that the $34,000 to accommodate the shift
in pay scale would have to be paid next year if it were approved. Mr. Foley said that if the County wanted to
do a phase-in, this would be the first year for that office.
Mr. Tucker said that Mr. Camblos is a year into the process of asking to come on line with County
salaries, and just this fall the Sheriff and Clerk of Court offices began the process. They are a year behind.
Mr. Foley explained that they requested it a year later, so they would phase into it completely a year later.
Mr. Rooker asked what the annual expense for the Sheriff’s office would be. Mr. Breeden
responded that Sheriff and Clerk combined are $100,000. He noted that those figures are just for staff, just
as the Commonwealth’s Attorney figures.
Mr. Foley noted that the Commonwealth’s Attorney and Sheriff have both requested attention to
their own salaries. Mr. Tucker suggested doing a market analysis using comparable localities. Board
members agreed.
After some discussion with Mr. Breeden and Mr. Tucker regarding the East Rivanna fire station’s
vehicle, Board members agreed to fund one-half or $41,930 of the $83,000 payoff.
Mr. Tucker asked what the Board wanted to do with ACE. Ms. Thomas said that she would prefer
to have the $650,000 to encourage participation in the program. Staff clarified that any money left unspent
would be carried over to the next year’s ACE program, and the Board could decide not to add to it in any
given budget year. Mr. Rooker supported keeping the $650,000 in. Mr. Boyd said that he believes
$350,000 meets the program needs. Mr. Rooker cited one year where $1 million was needed. Mr.
Bowerman agreed to leave the $650,000 in, as it would just go into reserve if it were not used. Mr. Dorrier
agreed. Mr. Boyd said that as long as the money earned some return that was acceptable to him.
Mr. Tucker noted that brings the total to $1.367 million in non-recurring funds and $40,000 in the
black for recurring funds.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Bowerman that the Board proceed to public hearing with the
budget as proposed and that the tax rate for real property be set at $0.76 per $100 of assessed value. Mr.
Rooker seconded the motion. 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.
_______________
Adjourn. There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at
4:50 p.m.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by the
Board of County
Supervisors
Date: 03/02/2005
Initials: DBM