Loading...
2005-03-14A March 14, 2005 (Meeting Adjourned from March 9, 2005) (Page 1) An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on March 14, 2005, beginning at 1:00 p.m. in Room 235, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. This meeting was adjourned from March 9, 2005. 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, Senior Deputy Clerk, Debi Moyers, Assistant County Executive, Tom Foley, Assistant County Executive, Roxanne White, Director of Office of Management and Budget, Melvin Breeden, Budget Analyst, Laura Vinzant, and Budget Analyst, Chris Bever. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 1:00 p.m. by the Chairman, Mr. Rooker. Mr. Rooker explained that the meeting today would need to adjourn by 3:35 p.m., as he has to chair a meeting of the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) at 4:00 p.m. _______________ Agenda Item No. 2. FY 2005-2006 Financial Plan Operating and Capital Budgets - Budget Work Session. Budget Overview - Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive. Mr. Tucker made a visual presentation of the proposed budget (copy of materials used for the presentation are on file in the Clerk’s office). Mr. Tucker explained that in prior years, the Board has developed a list of unfunded items for further consideration in future budget work sessions. He noted that the Board usually discusses that list of items at the end of the work sessions. If Board members are in agreement, they will proceed in that fashion. Mr. Tucker made a visual presentation of the proposed budget (copy of materials used for the presentation are on file in the Clerk’s office) He said the goal for this meeting is to cover General Government issues, retiree health insurances costs, Charlottesville Transit Service (CTS), stormwater and other unfunded strategic initiatives. He added that for the next work session to be held on March 16, the School Division budget will be reviewed followed by local government Capital Improvements Program and the Schools Capital Improvements Program. On March 21, staff will bring forward for continued discussion any issues from prior work sessions, and then hope to wrap up and finalize the budget for public hearing as well as the setting the tax rates. March 23 has also been set aside for wrap up, if not completed on March 21. Mr. Tucker reported that the budget figures represent lower total expenditures because next year, there is not significant outlay expected for capital and debt service. Mr. Boyd expressed surprise at that information. Mr. Rooker asked at what point an expenditure becomes such – when it is appropriated, or when it is actually paid. Mr. Breeden responded that for budgetary purposes, it is based on the appropriation. Mr. Breeden said that for the calendar year 2004 tax year, revenue was $67.9 million. He noted that there was a 27 percent original increase in reassessments, which nets the County a 23 percent increase when land use tax is considered. Mr. Breeden added that in FY 2005, the County received half of the 2004 amount and half of the 2005 amount. He pointed out that $75.1 million was budgeted for real estate collections, based on revenue projections, but the receipts would actually be higher. Mr. Breeden said that the County will likely receive an extra $727,000 in this fiscal year as a result of the 2005 reassessments. Mr. Breeden said that for the FY 2005 budget, about $88 million in revenue is projected. Mr. Boyd stated that next fiscal year an average taxpayer would pay 27 percent more than he did the previous year. Mr. Breeden noted that half of the reassessment gets impacted in each fiscal year. Mr. Breeden explained that there would be $13.2 million additional collected than what was budgeted in the current fiscal year, or a 17.5 percent increase. He said that $2.9 million has been set aside in reserve, the City Revenue Sharing increased by $1.7 million, and the tax relief program will increase by $100,000. The County is actually only netting $8.4 million of that total real estate increase for other purposes. Mr. Rooker asked what a penny on the City’s tax rate is worth to the City. Mr. Tucker replied that it is $400,000 or $500,000. Mr. Rooker commented that the amount of the proposed City tax rate cut is almost the exact amount of increase paid from the County (in revenue sharing increase). Mr. Breeden said that all other revenues received – other local taxes, state revenues, federal revenues, etc. – only increased by $3.9 million, which leaves the County with $12.3 million in “new money” for next year’s operating budget. He noted that this is just general fund money being discussed. March 14, 2005 (Meeting Adjourned from March 9, 2005) (Page 2) Mr. Breeden explained that an additional $6 million would be transferred to the schools, capital and debt decreases by $200,000, the stormwater program takes up $400,000, salary and benefits take $2.2 million plus $800,000. He mentioned that this includes the 4.4 percent merit pool for next year, a three percent scale adjustment, and also picks up positions funded in the current year’s budget for one-half a year, as well as some that were funded after the original budget was adopted. Mr. Breeden clarified that the only employees affected by the three percent scale adjustment would be new hires or current entry-level employees who were below the scale when hired, as well as reclassifications. He confirmed that there is a seven percent overall increase from last year for salary expenditures. Mr. Breeden added that ongoing commitments to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund, volunteer firefighters, vehicle replacements, enterprise agreement for computers, etc. are reflected in the expenditures. He noted that there have been significant agency increases, including $200,000 to CTS, $100,000 to JAUNT, and $100,000 to juvenile detention; there has also been an additional $200,000 put into Board Reserve. Mr. Breeden mentioned that there are allocations for three policeman, one civilian patrol officer, and parks and recreation trail use, leaving $1.3 million after those expenditures. He added that $800,000 of that went to outside agencies, and $500,000 went to department operating cost increases. That is basically an overview of what is included in this budget. Ms. Thomas noted that the figures show that the County is getting more support from the state because of personal property tax relief, and asked if there is a way to get that separated out so it gives a clearer picture of what the state is providing. Mr. Tucker and Mr. Breeden agreed to do this, with Mr. Breeden noting that personal property tax used to be considered local tax, and it is still considered local for sharing with the schools. He added that the state has decided that that has to be classified now as state revenue, which creates a $15 million shift in how it appears as revenue. Mr. Boyd commented that there is no line-item measurement of county cost-saving measures, although they are discussed at budget time. Mr. Breeden responded that staff is just now beginning to list those items out, as those measurements are difficult to make; the strategic plan is helping them identify the results of cost-saving measures. Mr. Breeden continued with his report, explaining that there should be $3.4 million in surplus revenues in the current fiscal year. He said that they are planning on spending $681,000 in one-time items for next year’s budget, and ACE Program funding would be an additional $650,000. Mr. Breeden pointed out that a one-cent tax rate reduction would reduce that surplus to $1.5 million, and two cents would reduce it to $973,000. Mr. Tucker noted that some projects are carried over between years for reappropriation. Mr. Bowerman asked if the reassessments were the reason for the additional $3.4 million. Mr. Breeden responded that the increase is due to all revenues, with reassessments accounting for the majority of that. He clarified that one-cent in tax accounts for about $1,184,000.00, and a drop in tax rate would reduce 2005 revenue by $592,000 for each cent. Mr. Breeden explained that the current reserve set aside is $2.8 million, with each one-cent reduction creating a $1.184 million decrease; he noted that one-cent reduction would make the reserve $1.7 million, and two cents would make it $522,000. He confirmed that the $1.3 million described before is already allocated - $800,000 going to agencies and $500,000 for departmental operating increases. Mr. Breeden noted that the increase in agency spending is almost 3.9 percent. Mr. Rooker asked for clarification of who is impacted by the three percent salary scale increase. Mr. Tucker stated that the teachers’ scale moves for each employee, but not for classified employees. Mr. Breeden reiterated that there is a three percent scale increase, a 4.4 percent merit pool increase, and a projected 12 percent increase in employer’s contribution to health and dental insurance. Mr. Boyd asked if county staff feels comfortable with that 12 percent increase, noting a previous year when that figure had to be adjusted mid-year. Mr. Breeden replied that the current year’s budget was based on a 15 percent increase, and those costs are monitored closely, with the County reimbursing the insurance carrier for the expenses they pay out plus a processing fee. He added that the Total Rewards program was funded at $20,000, and will be funded next year at $50,000. Mr. Boyd mentioned that he would like to look at a program where employees who find savings can be rewarded, and cited a private sector example of an employee getting a large bonus for saving his company $1.5 million. Mr. Tucker pointed out that the schools have not been participating in the Total Rewards program. Mr. Wyant said that there was a similar program at the state level. Mr. Boyd added that it might help to provide specific rewards to clarify the program for employees. Ms. Thomas noted that it might be more difficult to accomplish outside of a manufacturing/ commerce environment, as many county costs are salaries and benefits, instead of production items. March 14, 2005 (Meeting Adjourned from March 9, 2005) (Page 3) Mr. Breeden pointed out that the computer upgrades have been funded in the budget with operating costs and fund balances; this year the entire funding will be from the operating budget. He noted that the replacement vehicle costs were also funded similarly, and will gradually move entirely into the operating budget, and said that fuel costs will show up as a substantial increase. Ms. White mentioned that the IT Department had one line item of $10,000 that was eliminated because of the Enterprise Agreement. Mr. Boyd responded that it would be helpful to have those line items noted in the budget. __________ Ms. Vinzant addressed the Board to present the Operating Budget. She reported that Finance makes up the largest portion of the administrative/functional area, followed by IT. Ms. Thomas asked how performance targets were set, to make sure that they are ambitious enough. Ms. White responded that they are set by individual departments, and county administration is in the process now of evaluating outcomes and how they relate to the Strategic Plan. She added that it needs to be conveyed to staff that there will not be penalties imposed for not meeting goals. Ms. Vinzant noted that the Social Services Department has been through the process, and there outcomes have been stronger; currently, Fire & Rescue, ECC, and General Services are going through the performance measures process, with other departments to follow shortly. Mr. Tucker added that he believes it is up to county administration to stretch those goals, and in another year those differences will be more measurable. Ms. Vinzant presented a graph that showed where administrative/functional expenses fall, noting that salaries and benefits make up the bulk of the expense. She mentioned that between 2005 and 2006 there is a decrease in operating capital shown, primarily because of the use of one-time funds in 2005 for voting expenses; if that is removed, there is a 4 percent increase from 2004 to 2005 in baseline operations. Ms. Vinzant reported that the major changes in the Administration/Functional area are: implementation of IT salary classification; increase in Board of Supervisors for “Public Official Liability” of $14,449; County Executive’s office grants locator system; strategic planning & consulting. Mr. Boyd asked about the grants locator system. Mr. Breeden responded that it is a software system that assists in finding grants. Ms. Thomas mentioned that there should be a goal associated with that purchase, in terms of what it brings back in compared to what it costs. Mr. Breeden said that some of those grants would come in anyway. Ms. Vinzant continued with her report, explaining that early retirement costs have increased to $27,727. Mr. Boyd asked if Total Rewards would all be put under the administrative budget. Mr. Breeden pointed out which departments are included in the administration portion. He noted that Total Rewards was allocated among several departments. Mr. Tucker clarified that there were amounts from each department per capita moved into the County Executive’s budget so that department heads would not be in a position of having to “reward themselves.” Mr. Boyd asked about the Loss Control Manager position, and whether savings had been realized from that new hire. Ms. White responded that the Loss Control Manager just started, and one of his first tasks is looking at Workman’s Compensation cost reduction. Mr. Rooker suggested having the Workman’s Compensation evaluation consider the classifications of employees to ensure that the categories having the lowest expense include as many people as possible. Mr. Breeden noted that there has been a lot of work over the years put into making sure those classifications are correct, and the numbers are audited each year. He added that the positions are evaluated frequently also. Mr. Wyant asked about the cost for computer maintenance. Ms. White responded that each department is charged for computer maintenance, so it is reflected in each departmental budget; the funds are then transferred to IT to make necessary repairs. Mr. Breeden noted that at the beginning of each year, all funds allocated to those departments for IT is held in a fund until it is needed. Mr. Rooker questioned why 21 IT employees are needed. Mr. Boyd noted that there are 36 IT people in the school system. Mr. Rooker noted that if there were 2 full-time IT people in each department, you’d have less than 21 IT people. March 14, 2005 (Meeting Adjourned from March 9, 2005) (Page 4) Mr. Tucker noted that the County IT office handles schools, local governments, HR needs, all financial computer data. He clarified that the school IT personnel are in Instruction Technology. Mr. Breeden said that the operating systems on the mainframe are school accounting, school payroll, school HR, and are maintained by county IT. Mr. Rooker stated that it is an area that should be looked at, as the ratios seem “out of whack.” Mr. Boyd noted that at one point, the IT departments for schools and the County were combined, and the separation occurred because of philosophical differences. He added that perhaps now is the time to discuss joining those departments again to be more efficient. Mr. Wyant commented that he hoped there would be more savings realized from the Enterprise Agreement. Ms. White responded that what is not shown is the cost of having to buy those upgrades. Mr. Rooker noted that part of it is efficiencies of maintenance achieved by having everyone on the same software. Mr. Rooker asked about double-digit increases in departmental salary expenses where there are no new employees. Ms. Vinzant noted that in the County Attorney’s office, for example, there were several employees reclassified, which bumped up the total. The Board will see some departments getting “hard to fill” increases, across the board, which will impact budgets. Some departments have larger percentage increases. Mr. Rooker commented that the Board had approved a one-time amount for a two-year period. He asked if that allocation cover these increases. Ms. Vinzant explained that it was budgeted in a reserve fund last year, and now it is showing up in the department. Mr. Tucker said next year the Board won’t see that increase. Mr. Rooker asked for an explanation of who fits into that reclassification category. Mr. Tucker explained that it was determined by HR, who identified “hard to fill” positions and primarily department heads brought that list forward. He said that Albemarle was compared with other localities. __________ Mr. Bever then presented information on the Judicial budget, referencing a pie chart that showed the majority of the cost being the Sheriff’s office, including vehicle replacement costs. He stated that there was a major change in the Clerk of Circuit Court’s office, and staff salary reclassification monies are being held in a reserve right now – not in the department operating budgets. Mr. Bever noted that the Commonwealth’s Attorney position also had a significant salary increase. He noted that there was a 5.6 percent decrease in state revenues for constitutional officers, adding that there is also money in the salary contingency reserve for Sheriff’s staff reclassification. Mr. Bever pointed out a decrease in reimbursable overtime of almost $37,000; this is offset 100 percent by local revenues. Mr. Breeden added that in areas where county staff thought reclassifications might occur in the next fiscal year, they estimated those costs and put those funds into a non-departmental contingency fund. Mr. Rooker noticed a 23 percent increase in local funding for the Sheriff’s office. Mr. Tucker said that they would not yet know the exact amount of increase until HR finishes their evaluation of that department. Mr. Bever explained that the vehicle replacement costs for the Sheriff’s office increased by $25,000, with fuel costs increasing by $8,200. Mr. Rooker mentioned that there is a projected reduction in state funding for the Sheriff’s office of $37,000, and asked what is causing that. Mr. Breeden responded that the amount budgeted for the current year from state revenues is more than what had actually been approved for this year, and the reimbursable overtime is based on what was done in the prior year (private security), and those hours were less than in previous years. He confirmed that the County is not trying to make up for the unpaid overtime. Mr. Rooker said it seems to be a huge increase of percentage allocation to an office where technically they are state employees. Mr. Breeden noted that the Juvenile Court is funded by both the city and the state also. Mr. Rooker asked if the County had any say over how many employees are in the Sheriff’s office. Mr. Tucker replied that the Sheriff gets an allocation based on that office’s needs, and the state provides an amount for specific positions. He added that because the Board had agreed to bring those employees’ pay in line with other localities, the County would need to provide funds to meet that. Mr. Rooker commented that the County needs to be in a situation where it is not providing funding for an indefinite number of hirees that it has no control over. Mr. Tucker commented that his office could make available information about the number of hirees March 14, 2005 (Meeting Adjourned from March 9, 2005) (Page 5) the state agrees are needed for the Sheriff’s office. He added that the state has gradually pulled back and reduced the amount of funding that they have agreed to fund all these constitutional officers. He added that the state is pulling out more and more, leaving the responsibility to the localities. Mr. Bowerman said that the Sheriff has reserves, and he saves money if he doesn’t use those personnel. Mr. Rooker stated that his concern is not being able to control the number of people hired. Mr. Breeden agreed that he could provide information on how many people the state says that office should have. Mr. Bever reported that with the Juvenile Court expansion, the money is still there, it is just in a different place in the budget. __________ Mr. Bever reported that the Public Safety budget for 2005-06 totals $21.6 million, with the Police Department taking up 46 percent, and Fire & Rescue taking up 17 percent. He mentioned that state “599 funding” for police increased 6 percent; local revenues increased 5.5 percent, due largely to reimbursed overtime revenues, which are offset with expenditures. Mr. Bever said that three police officers and a civilian patrol assistant have been added in this budget, and the salary contingency reserve would be used for reclassification of public safety employees, effective January 1, 2006 – totaling $165,000. He added that there is a $35,000 increase in overtime wages in the police department, based on overtime wages. Mr. Bever explained that there is over $220,000 increased for vehicle replacements and fuel costs. Ms. Thomas asked if overtime wages had been monitored to make sure that they are not out of line with what police departments usually see. Mr. Bowerman asked if that also generated revenue. Mr. Breeden said that there are two categories – one that occurs in normal operations, and one that is reimbursable. Mr. Bowerman asked if they were short-staffed, and if that is why the overtime is occurring. Mr. Breeden replied that it is difficult to say, but some of the overtime is related to court. Mr. Rooker asked what the percentage in overtime increase was for the budget. Mr. Breeden said that the current year’s budget provides $155,000, and next year, that is going up by $35,200. Mr. Dorrier asked about the retirement for police officers. Mr. Tucker responded that that is an item to be dealt with in unfunded initiatives. Mr. Bever continued, explaining that increases in fire and rescue costs were largely related to personnel added in 2004-05; two firefighter ALS positions for the CAARS ambulance and a firefighter for Stony Point were added in this fiscal year. He added that this budget also reflects a full year of funding for the EMS supervisor and instructor, which last year was funded as a six-month position. Mr. Bever added that there is an almost $53,000 increase in vehicle repair and maintenance. He said that there were also increased costs for annual physical exams for each employee and a contract increase of $15,000 for a medical director of services. Mr. Bever said the operating budget this year includes $75,000 in recurring funds for vehicle replacement. Mr. Rooker asked about the 16.7 percent salary increase, in light of the new positions. Mr. Bever confirmed that there were three positions added during the year, and a full year of funding for the EMS supervisor and instructor, or four people total. Mr. Breeden pointed out that last year’s budget only included one-half year for the EMS supervisor, and the other three positions were funded after the original budget process partway through the year. Mr. Rooker clarified that he was trying to determine how much salaries would be increased. Mr. Breeden responded that the 4.4 percent merit pool increase was what employees would realize. Mr. Boyd asked if the $75,000 would be a total cost or an increase. Mr. Foley explained that it was in the capital fund last year, and now it is in the operating budget, noting that the fund is primarily for the volunteer service to replace their equipment. Mr. Bever noted that there is a total increase of 17.4 percent in fire and rescue over last year, or $174,000, to fund those operations. He mentioned that there is a $25,000 contingency fund added in the CIP for emergency vehicle repair. Ms. Thomas asked how much the shift for the County paying for operating and capital for those services adds to the budget. Mr. Foley replied that the changes have happened over a few years, with the County moving towards 85 percent funding last year, and the entire amount this coming year. Ms. Thomas suggested having county staff taking a look at the progression of fire and rescue and other costs, and provide a list so that Board members can get a better idea of costs that the County is newly responsible for. Mr. Bowerman commented that the County is just trying to augment what volunteer personnel are March 14, 2005 (Meeting Adjourned from March 9, 2005) (Page 6) offering to the County, to ensure that they can do their jobs. He stated that fire and rescue volunteers “are saving the County millions.” Mr. Boyd asked what the fire and rescue personnel would have to cover if they were doing their own fundraising. Mr. Dan Eggleston addressed the Board and explained that he has met with fire and rescue station personnel to discuss what they need to operate, and having the County assume operations costs has allowed fundraising revenue to be used for building expansion. Mr. Boyd commented that each fire station has a different fundraising. Mr. Foley pointed out that when the County agreed to assume operations funding, the message to the local stations was that their fundraising revenue would be used for building expansions, etc. __________ Mr. Bever continued with his report, noting that under the Building Codes budget section, the major changes were salary increases due to department-wide reclassification, increased costs associated with vehicles ($24,000). Ms. Thomas asked about the water resources management expense, and asked if that was impacted by the new groundwater ordinance. Mr. Bever responded that that is currently a line item under Community Development, but would be moved to an appropriate place as the budgeting process continues. He added that there is $20,000 in the budget for groundwater monitoring and wells, but that would be moved during the budgeting process. Mr. Bever reported that the Juvenile Detention Center increase is 18.9 percent, or almost $136,000, based on identified increased usage by Albemarle County, and is going to need more attention during this budget process. Board members asked for clarification. Mr. Breeden stated that there are no firm figures for projected state revenues at this point, and Albemarle has noticed an increase in their usage of the facility. Mr. Boyd asked what the cause of that was. Mr. Breeden said it is just being used more. Mr. Tucker mentioned that the state left Albemarle “high and dry” and totally pulled out from funding the facility. Mr. Bowerman noted that it was the way they set the funding formula up that has created issues. Mr. Bever explained that the SPCA increases 11.1 percent, based on the funding formula agreed upon by the city, county, and the organization. He added that OAR would experience a 5.8 percent decrease, based on their requested amount for the drug court portion. Mr. Bever mentioned that the Juvenile Court Assessment Center and Community Attention have been combined into one agency. He said that the Office of Public Defender is not recommended to be funded at this time. Mr. Dorrier asked who would fund it. Mr. Breeden replied that the state has funded it in the past, but that office has requested that the city and county supplement their salaries to be in line with the Commonwealth Attorney’s office; the city has indicated they would not, and the County agreed. Mr. Boyd asked how the SPCA funding formula was decided. Mr. Foley replied that it is based on cost per animal that go into the facility. __________ Mr. Bever presented information on General Services and Public Works, noting that the total budget for those is $3.3 million. He mentioned that staff moved stormwater costs from Community Development into this functional area, and it would be separated out by line item as the budgeting process continues. Mr. Bever added that the $359,000 for that is funded in the 2005-06 recommended budget. Ms. Thomas asked if there was an increase for solid waste management. Mr. Tucker replied that the bulk of it is in capital, with some in operating. Ms. Thomas responded that she meant recycling. Mr. Tucker said that the County is not ready at this point to deal with any recommendation on that. Mr. Rooker said that there is $345,000 budgeted for recycling. Mr. Tucker stated that he thought Ms. Thomas was asking about a more comprehensive program. Mr. Dorrier asked about street lighting installation, noting that his constituents in Esmont have noticed a lot of lights out. Mr. Tucker explained that maintenance is the responsibility of Virginia Power, although the purchase cost is assumed by the County. Mr. Foley agreed to look into the matter. Mr. Bever pointed out that baseline and capital have been decreasing in the General Services/ Public Works area, while salary and benefit costs have increased. This is a little deceptive in that part of the decrease is to the operating contribution to RSWA. He mentioned that there has been an increase in the CIP as more capital needs were identified for General Services/Public Works, along with increased maintenance costs with COB 5th Street being fully occupied. Mr. Rooker asked about the $2.00 surcharge per gallon that goes into vehicle replacement. Mr. Bever responded that that amount would actually be increased to $3.00 to see if vehicle replacement costs could be covered that way. Mr. Boyd asked if that money would be in the Capital Improvements Program (CIP). Mr. Bever March 14, 2005 (Meeting Adjourned from March 9, 2005) (Page 7) replied that this is a separate fund, separate from CIP. Ms. White clarified that next year should bring the fund to cover 100 percent of costs. Mr. Bever continued, noting that there is $20,000 allocated for the Keene landfill contract, which he said was based on historical data. He added that $40,000 was added for needed equipment and machinery for county buildings, especially COB 5th Street, which also has facilitated the need for additional maintenance, repair and supplies. Mr. Bever said that water and sewer and heating utilities increased $27,000 based on actuals. He pointed out that the rent to Woolen Mills has decreased by $28,000, and that contract ends in October 2005. Mr. Bever added that the mandated stormwater control measures are included as a lump sum of $359,000 to be split between salary, benefits, and one-time operating costs. __________ Ms. Vinzant presented information on the total Human Services budget, which includes CSA, Family Support and Bright Stars. She noted that Social Services makes up the largest portion of that part of the budget, and said that the $13 million figure is general fund expenditures only, which includes the transfer to the CSA, Bright Stars, and Family Support; the $19 million includes the total CSA, Bright Stars and Family Support budgets, including state funds. Ms. Vinzant noted that the overall increase in operating expenses is 4.8 percent, and the FY04 transfers included an additional $400,000 to Family Support. Ms. Vinzant said that the largest increase in Social Services was $106,000 for public assistance, and many of these are fully reimbursable. She mentioned that there was an increase of $18,500 in overtime, based on what actual expenditures have been. Ms. Vinzant added that the CSA transfer is the same as last year. She said that three new programs will receive first-time funding this year as a result of the CCF funding process – the Boys & Girls Club ($12,000); the Legal Aid Society ($11,610 for Elder-Law Outreach Program); and Insurance for Children Project ($9,100 in one-time funds) through United Way. She explained that there is a $20,000 increase to CCF, primarily due to a loss of state funding and increased rent for CCF now that they are at COB 5th Street. The JAUNT contribution, she added, has increased by 14 percent, to offset reduction in state revenues, and maintains current service levels only. She added that there is a 45 percent jump in the tax relief program, which fully implements the changes in the qualification requirements. Mr. Rooker asked for explanation on the Thomas Jefferson Health District increase. Ms. White explained that they under-budgeted last year, and did not count for increase in salaries, so they are in a situation of “two-year catch-up.” Ms. Thomas and Mr. Rooker noted that they asked for $105,000, and the County is giving them $52,000 now. Ms. Thomas asked if there would be additional work for them because of the groundwater ordinance. Mr. Rooker asked if the City was increasing Health District contributions, and Ms. White responded that she did not know. Ms. White explained that the County meets with the City to look at their budget. Mr. Dorrier stated that he believes the Boys & Girls Club to be a worthwhile program, especially their mentoring efforts. __________ Unfunded Initiatives. Mr. Breeden presented information on the retirees health insurance, noting that the Board had previously requested that county staff look at this issue. He explained that this program would include existing retirees (VRS participants), and said that it was difficult to determine the number of years of service those employees had. Mr. Breeden stated that with the assumptions that the County (1) pays the entire amount – 100 percent, and (2) the demands increase at around 12 percent a year through 2010, and (3) the County stops paying when the employee reaches age 65. Mr. Breeden reported that the County pays a supplemental payment each month to teachers for their health insurance, providing they have a minimum of 15 years of service, which is approximately $1,400. He mentioned that that started out as a state program, and two years ago, the state abandoned it and left it up to localities. Mr. Breeden noted that if the County provided the retirees health insurance for everyone who has retired with 20 years of service, it would cost $2.4 million in FY06, and would reach $4.3 million annually by FY10. He added that for 30 years+ employees, that figure exceeds $1 million by FY10, noting that not all employees would reach the 30-year mark. Mr. Rooker commented that private industry is moving in the direction of dropping these supplemental health insurance programs. Mr. Breeden stated that there are a number of localities that are providing that benefit, and there have been issues of equity raised. Mr. Tucker mentioned that former Sheriff Terry Hawkins and other police officers were present to speak about the issue if the Board allowed. Mr. Bowerman pointed out that the plan would be for all employees. Mr. Rooker agreed that it should be for everyone, noting that a group addressed the Board previously on this topic. March 14, 2005 (Meeting Adjourned from March 9, 2005) (Page 8) Mr. Hawkins said that after five years, the gap between retiring and getting Medicare has a tremendous impact, and a significant portion of their retirement goes toward health insurance. He noted that the state encourages police officers to retire at 50 or 55, which has forced many of them to work extra jobs to make up the difference until they are 65 and qualify for Medicare. Mr. Breeden said that retirees are allowed to stay on the County health insurance plan, but they must pay the full premium – the employer’s share and their own share. Mr. Boyd commented that it is being done for school employees, and it should be done for all employees. Mr. Tucker and Mr. Breeden said that they could put together figures that showed the impact of implementing that plan for all employees. Mr. Rooker said that the County should look at the legal obligation the County has to continue the school program, in light of the fact that no other employees have that. He added that employers are moving away from pension plans into 401k’s, with people able to work as long as they want to. Mr. Dorrier commented that law enforcement officers were different, because their life expectancy was expected to be shorter. Mr. Tucker added that the state tries to recognize that through the LEOS program, whereby policemen and firemen get an additional supplement over and above VRS through age 65. Sheriff Ed Robb addressed the Board, and said that he manages that office’s budget. He explained that the law sets out that courthouses and courtrooms are secure, and should designate deputies for this purpose. Sheriff Robb pointed out that the existing court buildings do need work, but he is most concerned about additional staff. He said that they have not added a single deputy or office staff person over the last five years, although the workload and threats have increased. Sheriff Robb said that the Juvenile Court is a “zoo,” with serious security risks. They are meeting the challenge and they are being recognized statewide for our efficiency. Sheriff Robb stated that he is asking for one deputy and a clerk to permit his office to meet the state code requirements for court safety and civil process. He noted that there are currently 18 deputies, with an increasing workload and lots of overtime that is taken as compensatory time, with three deputies on any given day. Sheriff Robb confirmed that there are 21 total employees, including himself. Mr. Rooker said that these items are on the list to be discussed. He said that the County’s net increase for the Sheriff’s Department is 29.3 percent this year, partly because that department was brought on the County scale, which the Board supported. Mr. Rooker said that in light of that, it will be very difficult to also consider adding people, and the state sets a standard that they will fund in each department. Sheriff Robb responded that the state looks at Sheriff’s Departments statewide and determines the work that each office is doing, and a committee recommends to the state the number of deputies. He added that that formula has not changed for years, and the state has never been adequately funding everything, and the state doesn’t have historic courthouse conditions that require additional security. Sheriff Robb emphasized that the historic structures with their many entrances make it difficult to provide security, and he has five additional deputies because of that. They need help. Mr. Rooker commented that this is another area where the state is not doing their job. He added that they should look at the possibility of funding one additional deputy. Mr. Boyd said that he would like to see one deputy and one clerk added on the list for discussion. Mr. Foley mentioned that there has been a request for EMS staffing also on the unfunded list, for the Scottsville Rescue Squad, and the current concern is that only 55 percent of the rescue calls in that area are answered within the 13 minute response standard. He noted that in the daylight hours, that is achieved, but not on weekend and evening times when it is volunteer. Mr. Foley said that Scottsville has proposed 24/7 staffing, which would require five additional personnel and start-up costs, with an ongoing cost of $300,000. He said that there are currently three staff on daytime coverage, which is $186,000. Scottsville proposes having Advanced Life Support staff available around the clock, and staff would also provide training when calls are not being made. Mr. Foley noted that this proposal increases the need for primary response from volunteers. Mr. Foley mentioned that this raises the question of supplemental service versus primary service, with the County providing supplemental service to the primary service provided by volunteers, which exists everywhere except the Monticello fire station. This request would basically shift that around, and the volunteers would be supplementing the County response under these circumstances. He said that they may have 3-5 shifts that would be staffed with volunteers, but would not be primarily responsible for answering calls. Mr. Foley stressed that the County has approached this as a supplemental system in the past, with the County gradually providing more funding for operating costs. He added that Scottsville has separate fire and rescue, and staff wants to make sure that they have recruited volunteers. Mr. Foley said that 30 percent of calls there are now going to surrounding jurisdictions. He reported that he and Mr. Dorrier met with Fluvanna officials, and were not able to get a commitment for more money; Buckingham officials were reluctant to meet. Mr. Foley stated that in order to accomplish the goal for ALS coverage in Scottsville, three additional staff and an EMT driver would be needed. He said that the second option would be to provide one ALS career staff on a quick response vehicle 24/7 from the Monticello Fire March 14, 2005 (Meeting Adjourned from March 9, 2005) (Page 9) Station, which is staff’s preferred option. Mr. Mike Johnson addressed the Board, explaining that it takes two people to staff an ambulance by state law. He explained that operating on a critically injured person in the back of an ambulance alone while the other person is driving is not the ideal scenario. Mr. Johnson emphasized that they are not trying to shift responsibility to the County, but are trying to forge “an enhanced partnership” to bring levels of service up and meet response time standards, as well as meet certification and training levels. He said that they are most concerned with Advanced Life Support, as the state has increased training requirements that have precluded volunteers from achieving certification. Mr. Dorrier suggested exploring the issue further at a future session. Board members agreed. Mr. Tucker commented that someone from the Public Defender’s office was supposed to be present to make a request. _______________ Adjourn: At 3:40 p.m., with no further business to come before the Board, motion was offered by Mr. Dorrier, seconded by Ms. Thomas, to adjourn this meeting until March 16, 2005, at 1:00 p.m., in Room 235, for another work session on the budget. 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. ________________________________________ Chairman Approved by the Board of County Supervisors Date: 06/08/2005 Initials: EWC