2004-10-14A
October 14, 2004 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 1)
An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
October 14, 2004, at 4:00 p.m., in Meeting Room 235, County Office Building, McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia. This meeting was adjourned from October 13, 2004.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Mr. Dennis S. Rooker, Ms. Sally H.
Thomas and Mr. David C. Wyant.
ABSENT: Mr. Kenneth C. Boyd.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Deputy County Attorney, Mark
Trank, and, Clerk, Ella W. Carey.
SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Ms. Sue Bell Friedman, Mr. Stephen Koleszar, Ms.
Diantha McKeel, Ms. Barbara Massie Mouly, Ms. Pamela Moynihan, Mr. Gordon Walker, and Mr. Brian
Wheeler.
SCHOOL BOARD OFFICERS PRESENT: Superintendent, Kevin Castner, and School Board
Attorney, Mark Trank. Also present were Ms. Kimberly Suyes, Human Resources Director; and Ms.
Jennifer Johnston, Clerk of the School Board.
Agenda Item No. 1. The Supervisors’ meeting was called to order at 4:00 p.m. by the Chairman,
Mr. Dorrier. The School Board meeting was called to order at 4:00 p.m. by its Chairperson, Ms. McKeel.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 2. Proposed FY 2006 Compensation and Medical Insurance Report.
Ms. Suyes highlighted through a PowerPoint presentation information provided to the Board of
Supervisors and School Board in their executive summary. The information stated that in November 2000,
the School Board and Board of Supervisors approved a Total Compensation Strategy to target employee
salaries at 100 percent of market median and benefits slightly above the market at 105 percent. To
maintain competitive compensation based on the adopted strategy, two separate, but related actions are
required:
?
First, ensure a competitive salary scale so that the County is able to attract and recruit
new employees.
?
Second, ensure current employees are rewarded for performance by maintaining internal
equity in their pay range and also maintaining market competitiveness for similar skills.
To adhere to the Boards' adopted strategy, the following processes are implemented each year:
1) Annually survey the adopted market to determine the salary scale adjustment
implemented in those localities/schools for the current fiscal year.
2) Annually survey the adopted market to determine the average total salary increase
granted employees in those localities/schools for the current fiscal year.
3) In addition, on a tri-annual basis, the process includes surveying our adopted market not
only on scale adjustments, but gathering information on ranges and actual average
salaries of a number of benchmark positions. This allows for a more in-depth analysis of
our salaries and can identify positions that may need further review. The benchmark
survey occurred last year.
4) The data from steps 1), 2) and 3) is used to determine if the budget actions implemented in
the current year have achieved competitive positioning.
5) The data from steps 1) ,2) and 3 is analyzed to ascertain where the salary scales (both
classified and teacher) for Albemarle County stand relative to the market and arrive at
recommendations for next year’s salary increases.
6) Obtain data on what other organizations are projecting for salary increases for the next
fiscal year through a compensation database (WorldatWork. Eastern Region). This data is
used to project the merit pool increase and develop the teacher scale, including step
increase.
Last November, the Joint Boards recognized issues impacting the ability of the School Division and
Local Government to attract and retain a highly qualified workforce. These issues included:
?
Recent recruitments have resulted in a shallow pool of candidates for many positions;
?
Top candidates declining positions;
?
Candidates perceive high cost of living in area relative to salary;
?
Growing percentage of workforce eligible for retirement;
?
Difficulty recruiting and retaining highly qualified teachers- The impact of No Child Left Behind
which mandates “highly qualified” teachers and the increasingly aggressive market for teachers
makes attracting and retaining teachers a challenge. A review of the 131 School Divisions
indicated that Albemarle County teacher salaries dropped in competitiveness as the ranking
among other school divisions fell at every step, with the exception of our minimum and step 5.
In addition, the Albemarle Teacher scale is in the second quartile at all steps, with the
exception of minimum and step 5, relative to other school divisions in Virginia.
October 14, 2004 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 2)
To address these issues, in March 2004, the Joint Boards adopted compensation strategies for
different positions as follows:
1) Teachers- Target market position in adopted market at top quartile.
2) Positions that we recruit outside our adopted market-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. These localities represent areas that are in
Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA’s), both above and below Albemarle and currently
include: Hanover County, Loudoun County, City of Charlottesville, Prince William County,
Spotsylvania County, Chesterfield County, City of Chesapeake, City of James City County,
and City of Roanoke.
The information provided in this report details the analysis that supports the recommendations to
achieve the adopted strategies for FY05-06 and for the Boards to consider in giving budget guidance to the
County Executive and Superintendent. These projections are presented to the Boards for their
consideration in providing direction for FY05-06 budget preparation. It is noted that all final funding is
subject to, and based upon, available revenues and Board direction.
Section 1: Board Adopted Process for Compensation Strategy: Market Analysis and Projections
The following information is provided to both Boards to consider in providing guidance for the
development of the FY05-06 budget.
Step 1: FY04-05. Survey the market to determine if the scale adjustment implemented for
classified/administrator and teacher pay scales achieved the strategy.
Classified / Administrator Scale Adjustments-Target median of adopted market
The Albemarle County scale was adjusted by two percent in FY04-05 based on data that
showed our scale was below market. In reviewing the salary scale data, our adopted
market median scale adjustment was ~ two percent, so our current scale remains below
market (-0.9 percent). A competitive scale is important in attracting new hires. For
classified employees, the scale adjustment impacts new hires and any employees with pay
rates below the new minimums.
Step 2: FY04-05. Survey the market to determine if the total salary increase for classified
pay implemented achieved the strategy.
Classified Total Salary Increases -Target median of adopted market
Based on data showing that our salaries were slightly above market (0.3 percent) and the
projected increase was 3.3 percent, our salary increase for the FY 04-05 merit pool was
three percent. The median salary increase amount for our adopted market in FY 04-05
was ~4 percent.
Total Salary Increases for Positions recruited nationally/regionally-Target median of subset
of adopted market
Preliminary data illustrates that gains have been made in the two year phase-in for
increases. Detailed analysis will be provided when implementation is completed next year
to determine if the adopted strategy is being met. Evaluation of our ability to attract and
retain highly qualified candidates will be ongoing.
th
Teacher Scale Adjustments-Target top quartile (75 percentile) of adopted market
For teachers, the scale adjustment impacts actual salaries. The market survey conducted
showed our FY04-05 teacher pay scale overall did not reach our goals. Since only phase
one of a two phase plan was implemented, this was anticipated.
Step 3: Projections for FY05-06. Based on current market position and scale/salary
projections, determine the changes necessary to achieve the Board approved strategy
using the WorldatWork, Eastern Region data.
Classified/Administrator Scale Adjustments
Based on the salary scale data of our adopted market, which shows we are overall slightly
below market (0.9 percent), and the Worldatwork projection of a 2.1 percent increase, a
scale adjustment of three percent is proposed. Again, the scale adjustment impacts new
hires and any employees with pay rates below the new minimums.
Classified/Administrator Salary Increase (merit pool)
Based on the survey data showing that the median increase for our adopted market was
four percent and our increase was three percent, our salaries for FY04-05 are slightly
below market (0.7 percent). The WorldatWork survey for the Eastern Region (including
Virginia) is projecting a salary increase of 3.7 percent in the Education/Public
Administration sectors. Therefore, a 4.4 percent merit pool is recommended.
Positions recruited nationally/regionally
Continue second phase of implementation for positions which have been identified as
recruited for nationally and regionally. The increases are calculated based on the midpoint
as follows:
October 14, 2004 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 3)
?
Two or more paygrade reclassifications-employees received five percent of
midpoint effective, July 1, 2004 and will receive 5 percent of midpoint, effective
July 1, 2005. This amount will be the required amount (10 percent) stated in policy.
?
One paygrade reclassifications- employees received 3.75 percent of midpoint
effective, July 1, 2004 and will receive 3.75 percent of midpoint, effective July 1,
2005. This amount will be the required amount (7.5 percent) stated in policy.
Teacher Scale and Teacher Average Salary Increase
The teacher scale is based on the projected total increase obtained from WorldatWork.
This survey projects a 3.7 percent salary increase. Any increase would include the step
increase. This 3.7 percent would need to be in addition to our phase two implementation.
Continue longevity increases. Staff will prepare specific recommendations on the actual
teacher pay scale, to include longevity increases.
Section 2: Benefits Strategy: Market Analysis and Projections for Medical Insurance Premiums
FY 04-05 Plan Year
At the March 17, 2004 meeting, the Boards approved the 2004-2005 medical insurance premiums
and annual budgeted Board contribution of $5,232. The objectives of the Health Care Executive
Committee in developing recommendations regarding the medical plan were as follows:
?
maintain our current benefit design;
?
continue to offer affordable options;
?
build up the reserves to approximately 15 percent of total plan costs;
?
encourage movement of members from the high plan to the other options as our high option
plan has a rich plan design and may not be offered by insurers in the future, and
?
maintain our competitive position for benefits.
In view of the continued increase in the cost of health care throughout the country, we continued to
offer three different medical plans. Offering three plans recognizes the realities of the changes in medical
insurance costs and gives employees an opportunity to choose between different plans and different
premiums.
FY05-06 Plan Year Projection
Information provided by Mr. Tom Mackay, our consultant with PalmerCay, indicates medical trends
will continue at 15 percent and is projecting this for 2005-2006. This is consistent with escalating medical
costs that other employers are facing nationally. One factor contributing to the medical care cost increase
is the prescription drug costs, which continue to rise at a higher rate (13-16 percent). As we have just
started the new plan year, staff will continue to monitor claims experience and develop recommendations
for both plan design and premiums as part of the County Executive's and Superintendent's budget
proposals.
In summary, staff recommends budget development projections for FY 05-06 based on adopted
methodology. These projections are presented to the Boards for their consideration in providing direction to
both the County Executive and Superintendent for FY05-06 budget preparation. It is noted that all final
funding is subject to, and based upon, available state and local revenue.
1) 3 percent increase in the Classified Salary Scale.
2) 4.4 percent merit pool for classified staff.
3) Continue second phase of implementing increases for positions recruited for nationally
and regionally.
4) Continue funding for the second phase of Teacher increases to reach top quartile
(including 3.7 percent) to be distributed along the scale.
5) Continuation of a longevity increase for teachers.
6) Anticipate a 15 percent increase in medical plan costs but defer decision until budget
development in December/January.
Ms. Lorna Gerome, Human Resources Manager of Compensation and Benefits, addressed the
Boards with a slide presentation. The first slide shows the top quartile for the teachers’ scale, ranging from
$34,000 to $36,000. She said, although close, the County did not quite meet its goal. Ms. Gerome and Ms.
Suyes emphasized that the County wants to be higher at the base minimum entry level, in order to attract
teachers.
Ms. Gerome continued that the process for establishing salary increases, including the
WorldatWork model. She noted that Albemarle sits in the eastern geographic region, where educational
services and public administration are considered. WorldatWork is currently projecting a 3.7 percent
increase for FY 2005-06.
Ms. Thomas asked how the process is working now that they have had several years experience
with the WorldatWork parameters. Ms. Gerome and Ms. Suyes responded that the projections have been
close to target each year.
Mr. Rooker commented that the data is available from the previous year, noting that County raises
based on WorldatWork data are implemented, then compared against actual market changes. Ms.
October 14, 2004 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 4)
Gerome said that using both WorldatWork and actual market data brings the County closer to its goals.
Referring to the slide on the review of adopted market, Mr. Rooker said he does not necessarily agree with
the scale of over $1,000 for Step 0. The Boards did not vote on that, but there was a general agreement
that the focus would be on getting teachers into the top quartile. He does not recall the $1,000 being
agreed upon. It is more important to him to reach the top quartile at every step than to be $1,000 over at
some particular point on the scale.
Dr. Castner said the County would like to be competitive in hiring new college graduates, but if they
can hire someone at the lower end of the scale, they would prefer to do that rather than hiring people with
three, four or five years experience. The scale needs to be competitive to allow the school system to hire
young college graduates which would save money. Mr. Rooker commented that it may be a good strategy
overall. Dr. Castner said this strategy enables the County to hire people at different ends of the scale
especially at the front end, because they will stay with the County longer. Mr. Wyant noted that the goal is
not consistent throughout. Ms. Gerome explained that the scale is anchored at different points, so that it is
not “jumpy.”
Mr. Koleszar commented that he thinks since the pool was already below market, the County
should not just use WorldatWork, but also the amount the County is behind. Ms. Gerome said that with
benefits, the County wanted to target above market levels by about 105 percent, noting that staff believes
the strength of the County’s plan is in benefits and health insurance. She mentioned that in 2004-05 the
County offered three choices of plans and plan premium amounts, anticipating a 15 percent increase in
cost that has been pretty steady.
Mr. Rooker mentioned that other jurisdictions are making deals to buy drugs in Canada, including
localities that are saving money by doing that. Ms. Gerome agreed that the highest part of the plan’s cost
was prescription drugs. Mr. Rooker said he read some information about St. Louis schools that would save
$10.0 million in one year with medicine costs. He added that the plan administrators might have objections
to overseeing a plan that used prescriptions from Canada. Ms. Gerome responded that he might be
referring to a company that carved out their prescription benefit and is not having the health insurance
company administer it anymore, which is becoming more and more common. Mr. Rooker said it only
makes sense for people who are on regular prescriptions. He also mentioned health savings accounts as
an alternative.
Ms. Suyes stated that face-to-face presentations to employees this past year were very helpful in
explaining what options are available to them, as paper communications were not being read. She
continued that staff is recommending a 4.4 percent merit pool, based on projected WorldatWork 3.7
percent and adjustment for salary below market of .7 percent. They are also recommending a three
percent classified salary scale. For teachers, she said that the recommendation is to continue to implement
the second phase in order to reach the top quartile. She added that the committee would also like to
continue the lump sum longevity increase approved several years ago as it has proven to be a “great
motivator.” For the positions the County recruit regionally and nationally, the committee would also like to
continue the second phase of that, with increases going into effect in July; for benefits, the budget should
be increased by 15 percent.
Mr. Rooker asked if there were projections on the percentages expected for teacher salary
increases. Mr. Jackson Zimmerman, Director of Fiscal Services, stated that those figures are not available
yet, but the 3.7 percent and .7 percent figures would be used to come up with new goals relative to those
adjusted scales, but there has not been time to look at the competitive market yet to see what it is going to
do with that grouping of scales.
Mr. Rooker noted that once the top quartile is reached, the goal is just to maintain placement within
that upper tier. Ms. Suyes agreed, adding that it is important to look at what the rest of the state is doing
also, to ensure that Albemarle does not lose any ground. That data from the state is not available yet.
Ms. Thomas asked if there are particular categories where it is difficult to find qualified candidates.
Mr. Willie Smith mentioned that shop mechanics are very difficult to find, and he believes that the scale is
low for those employees. Ms. Thomas asked what adjustments are being made to remedy that situation.
Ms. Suyes replied that the staff decided to do a competitive review of the entire organization, not just
teachers and administrators, and they have set up a schedule in which to accomplish this. Ms. Gerome
elaborated, stating that they have a long-range plan to look at every department over a two to three year
period. She said that a more comprehensive review is necessary, not just looking at each position in
isolation, and gave the example of the Parks and Recreation Department as one needing attention, as that
director came in at over 30 percent below market. Ms. Gerome reported that the review is finishing up
community development, just starting public safety – fire, police, E911 – and will begin the review of
transportation along with building services. The staff does try to identify those positions that are below
market, but the positions have to be looked at n the context of a whole department or division.
Ms. McKeel asked if that would be an ongoing process, and asked for confirmation on the amount
of time it would take. Ms. Suyes confirmed that the review is a three-year cycle, which repeats after the
third year.
Mr. Rooker asked if the committee is waiting until the review is complete before recommending
changes. Ms. Suyes responded that the recommendations are brought forth as they go along.
Mr. Walker asked if the committee is looking at self-sustaining programs, such as after-school. Ms.
Gerome replied that those programs are in the cycle, but further down the order of review.
October 14, 2004 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 5)
Mr. Dorrier asked if the County is locked into Southern Health, and wondered if the employee gets
a choice. Ms. Suyes responded that the employee does get a choice, but all three plans are administered
by Southern Health. Mr. Rooker noted that Southern Health is doing the administration, but the County
bears the risk. Ms. Suyes explained that all premiums are put into a pot, and the claims are paid from that,
administered by Southern Health. Mr. Dorrier asked if the 15 percent increase is an annual increase. Ms.
Suyes replied that it is, and is in line with national trends. She mentioned that people working as they are
older, which can lead to higher overall health claims.
Mr. Walker asked if the committee had looked at health savings accounts and their viability. Ms.
Gerome replied that the Health Care Executive Committee looked at it last spring, and they would probably
review it again. Mr. Walker commented that those plans had matured a lot as far as what they offer. Mr.
Melvin Breeden stated that the County did not want to be the first to jump into that type of plan.
Mr. Rooker said those types of accounts make people aware of the dollar expenditures in health
care, and throughout the country, utilization has been increasing dramatically. A lot of companies are
adopting those as a strategy to make people understand that there is cost at the first dollar every time they
go to the doctor. He added that in a lot of cases, at the end of the year, employees save substantial money
at the end of the year. Ms. Suyes responded that the only downside is some employees are not being seen
as often as they need to be, especially those who are not as educated, and they are looking at it as a pay
out at the end of the year. She explained that delaying treatment for a sick person can lead to more serious
illness, which can end up costing them more in the long run. There’s a downside, but she thinks it is worth
looking at that type plan. Mr. Rooker said he thinks the County should look at it. He is not necessarily
advocating it or not, and it may be something that can be offered as an option.
Ms. Suyes said the committee is looking at several options. They went to the three-tier option, not
because it was nice to offer three options, but because they are trying to get the employees to move out of
the highest option. The committee wants employees to look more at the middle or lower option because
that high “richer” option is not going to be offered in the future.
Mr. Rooker expressed concern at the increasing costs, noting that everyone in the nation is looking
at ways to keep those costs down.
Ms. McKeel stated that the School Board is interested in looking into the ability of human resources
to inform employees about the worth of their benefits package, and wondered where the County stands on
that. Ms. Suyes mentioned that the presentation Board members attended about County benefits was the
first step in marketing benefits because it showed the value of those benefits.
Mr. Breeden said that a few years ago the County did include such information in paychecks, etc.,
but they discontinued it because it was difficult to make accurate calculations, especially in cases of split
positions. Mr. Rooker commented that it would certainly be a gesture of good will if the calculations could
be done accurately. Ms. Suyes said that the goal is to educate employees. Ms. Gerome mentioned that
meeting with the enrollment counselor is also beneficial. Ms. McKeel commented that it is important to
make employees aware of how much their package is worth to them.
Mr. Rooker said he worked for a private firm several years ago that provided an annual page
summary that included salary, FICA, workman’s compensation, IRA, and total compensation. It is a
powerful tool, because most people really don’t consider all these things. Mr. Breeden said the County
used to do that, and many companies combine it with the W-2 forms. Ms. Suyes commented that the ideal
time to send out that information would be right before salary increases, and suggested that Mr. Breeden
work with the Human Resources staff on it.
Ms. Thomas said that when she asks employees about what would improve morale, several have
mentioned benefits offered to retirees. There are more and more people thinking about their retirement,
and what it will involve. Ms. Suyes responded that at the very least, the County needs to address the gap
between coverage and Medicare, but the staff is looking at surrounding counties and what they are doing
for retirees. She mentioned that the Board of Supervisors has brought this forward as a request.
Mr. Tucker noted that this concern originated with the law enforcement division, and noted that the
city has a much stronger benefit package for their retirees. Mr. Breeden emphasized that it is important to
look at the number of retirees there currently are, how many are expected to retire, and the associated
costs of this. Ms. Suyes said Human Resources is working to assess the cost of retirement benefits, and
hope to bring that information to the Board in the very near future. Ms. Gerome added that there are certain
accounting rules that apply for which the staff need to be better informed, specifically the Medicare
supplement from age 65.
Mr. Breeden noted that the City’s benefit plan varies based on years of service. In addition, the City
continues to pay retiree health care up until the employee is eligible for Medicare, and at that point, also
furnish Medicare supplements.
Mr. Rooker said there also is a question about encouraging people to retire before they are eligible
for Medicare.
Ms. Suyes clarified that the City government provides those retirement benefits, but City schools
provide a different package.
Mr. Dorrier asked if there was an expectation for the board to take some action. Ms. Suyes replied,
October 14, 2004 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 6)
“yes”.
Mr. Walker commented that it would be great if there were incentives to reduce costs, through
encouraging employees to improve or maintain their health. He does not see a concerted effort on the part
of the County to do anything. Ms. Suyes agreed, but noted that the first step the County needed to take was
approve the budget initiative for a loss control management position, which will also focus on wellness and
workmen’s compensation/injury prevention. She added that the staff has already made steps towards
creation of a wellness program.
Mr. Walker asked if there are recommendations that come out of the Health Care Executive
Committee that the boards can look at during their budget process that says here’s a tried and true plan to
try to keep people healthier. Ms. Suyes responded that she believes there will be.
Mr. Rooker recalled from a prior meeting that the committee would be looking at how existing
programs were impacting claims. Ms. Suyes replied that unfortunately the data from the City of
Charlottesville does not support that wellness programs reduce claims, although they know that there is a
good chance that those claims would have even be greater had they not put those programs in place. The
problem is having the concrete data to show that it works. She believes it works and she thinks it is the right
thing to do for the employees. Mr. Walker responded that the committee could get data from the National
Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control. The information is all over the place and if it wants
to turn around this 15 to 20 percent increase, the County has to make a concerted effort.
Ms. Suyes asked what information the boards want provided. Mr. Walker replied that tried and true
means such as nutrition education and discounts to local health facilities would be a good start. Mr. Tucker
mentioned that the County had offered health screenings in the past. Mr. Walker pointed out that the
screenings are periodic and sporadic, and what he would like to see is consistency and a concentrated
effort. Dr. Castner commented that perhaps the person who assumes the loss control position could make
that a part of their job.
Mr. Rooker mentioned that there are a number of large employers who have offered these types of
programs, and they do have data on results. He added that Southern Health should have this data. Ms.
Suyes suggested she put this on the agenda of the next Health Care Executive Committee meeting. Mr.
Dorrier suggested the committee analyze preventative measures and determine how that impact claims.
Ms. Mouly noted that with new technology, there are more advanced screening methods available.
Mr. Rooker stated that there are companies, such as Life Screening, which provide affordable tests
that are reliable and accurate indicators of a person’s health. He added that he had recently been to
Calvary Baptist Church and they offered four tests for $129, whereas a hospital would charge $1,000.
Ms. Gerome said that Southern Health has done a good job in reducing costs with their disease
management program for cases of heart disease and diabetes. She agreed that the County does need to
be more proactive in keeping people healthy.
Mr. Wheeler suggested that there are additional forms of teacher compensation that need to be
considered, that might not be a part of advertised scales, such as length of service contributions.
Mr. Rooker asked if merit pools were used throughout the competitive market. Ms. Gerome replied
that some localities do cost of living, and some do a cost of living/merit pool combination. In their review,
they also looked at number of days per contract year and number of hours, as well as advanced degree
compensation. Ms. Gerome added that it has been difficult to collect comprehensive data. Ms. McKeel
said it would be interesting for the Boards to hear that information.
Dr. Castner asked Mr. Wheeler if he was planning to include his recommendations now, as it would
probably be realistic to begin it next year, commenting that it is going to be challenging to address what has
already been proposed. Ms. Gerome noted that they have already included some of that information. Ms.
Mouly emphasized that these are projections, so they have a little more weight than suggestions, although
they are of course based on availability of revenue. Mr. Rooker said that the request sounds to him as
additional information to be considered for this years’ budget. Ms. Gerome emphasized that they are
providing recommendations to set the budget, and the recommendations are based on the numbers
presented today. Dr. Castner stated that this is what is used to build the budget.
Ms. Moynihan asked Dr. Castner about how recruiting for principals has been helped by having an
increased salary scale and expanding to regional and national markets. Dr. Castner responded that five or
six years ago, a national search was done for the principal of Monticello High School, and 40 out of 50
applicants had principal experience. This past year, the same national search was done, and only 7 of 15
total applicants had principal experience. The system is more competitive with salaries in recent searches,
as they only lost a few candidates in the process because of pay. Dr. Castner added that the process takes
time.
Ms. Moynihan asked if the recommendation should go even higher with phase two. Ms. Suyes
responded that she believes the adjustment made next July will make Albemarle competitive, although this
could change next school year. The committee feels comfortable with the current recommendation.
Ms. Mouly asked what aspects of the merit pool and scale increases are most susceptible to
change. Mr. Zimmerman stated that scale does not necessarily impact employee salaries overall, but just
new hires. He emphasized that it is the merit pool that generates the cost as employees move up the
scale, and is subject to funds available. He thinks the County need to maintain some type of balance
October 14, 2004 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 7)
between merit pool and scale as well, so if the merit pool is reduced down significantly, the County has to
look and see if a new person will start at the same place as an experienced person on the scale.
Mr. Rooker commented that there is a huge problem with the car tax, as the County will lose $8.0
million in revenue. He mentioned that the County passed a resolution asking the state legislature to
immediately address the issue.
Ms. Thomas asked where Albemarle County is in terms of candidate competitiveness. Ms. Suyes
replied that the candidate pool of teachers was much better this year, which she credits in part to salary
increases, and retention also improved.
Ms. McKeel stated that she senses much better morale within the schools this year.
Mr. Dorrier asked if the Board of Supervisors would like to make a motion on what has been
presented. Mr. Zimmerman said the committee is presenting a strategy for internal needs, and he is
cautious about having it put into a motion for vote because they would have to bring it back if the strategy
needed to be changed. Mr. Rooker said that it is an internal strategy, it should not be voted on by the
boards. He said that essentially what is needed is a motion to approve the six recommendations brought
forth by staff.
Mr. Rooker then offered motion to approve the following six recommendations brought forth by
County staff as guidance for the County Executive and Superintendent for FY 2005-06 budget preparations:
?
3% increase in the Classified Salary Scale;
?
4.4% merit pool for classified staff;
?
continue second phase of implementing increases for positions recruited nationally and
regionally;
?
continue funding for the second phase of teacher increases to reach top quartile (including
3.7%) to be distributed along the scale;
?
continuation of a longevity increase for teachers; and
?
anticipate a 15% increase in medical plan costs but defer decision until budget
development in December/January.
Ms. Thomas seconded the motion. Mr. Tucker noted that this in no way obligates the County to
specific financial allocations. This action is basically an implementation of existing policy already agreed
upon. Roll was then called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Boyd.
__________
Mr. Koleszar then offered motion, seconded by Mr. Walker, that the School Board
approve the six recommendations brought forth by County staff as guidance for the County Executive and
Superintendent for FY 2005-06 budget preparations, as set out above. Roll was called, and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Friedman, Mr. Koleszar, Ms. McKeel, Ms. Mouly, Ms. Moynihan, Mr. Walker and Mr. Wheeler.
NAYS: None.
__________
NonAgenda. Ms. Pam Moran addressed the Boards, stating that she had worked with Roxanne
White on Life-Long Learning. Last spring the School Board had a retreat. A suggestion has been the
possibility of a Board of Supervisors and School Board retreat, with a facilitator, to discuss strategic planning
and other issues where there is overlap.
Mr. Dorrier said he thinks a joint retreat sounds like a good idea. Other Board members concurred.
________________
October 14, 2004 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 8)
Agenda Item No. 3. Adjourn to October 26, 2004, 8:00 a.m., Zehmer Hall.
At 5:08 p.m., motion was then made by Mr. Rooker, seconded by Mr. Wyant, to adjourn to
th
October 26 at 9:00 a.m., for the Board of Supervisors’ retreat at Zehmer Hall. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Boyd.
________________________________________
Chairman
Approved by Board
Date: 03/02/2005
Initials: DBM