Loading...
2005-03-16A March 16, 2005 (Adjourned Meeting from March 14, 2005) (Page 1) An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on March 16, 2005, beginning at 1:00 p.m. in Room 235, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. This meeting was adjourned from March 14, 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. Work Session: FY 2005-06 COUNTY BUDGET: Mr. Tucker explained that the school division operational budget would be the first item on the agenda, to be followed by local government CIP budgets. Mr. Wyant commented that he has spoken with his constituents throughout the county, many of whom have expressed concern about how the budget is built and noting a lack of efficiency. He mentioned that the budget is growing much faster than inflation and growth. Mr. Rooker agreed that every efficiency should be looked at, and said that any Board member at any time can recommend a cut in any particular item through the budget process. So that is open to Mr. Wyant and every Board member. He added that the Board has representatives on the budget committee who should provide input at that level also. Mr. Rooker cited the fact that he had raised concerns at their last meeting about IT personnel. He does not think in the next three weeks the Board can reform or substantially change any department. He added that if there is an issue with a specific department, that should be looked into more thoroughly, but he does not know if the Board can get anywhere by talking in generalities. It comes down to looking at line items in the budget and making a determination of whether or not the county is being inefficient and how that can be improved. Mr. Wyant said that when he worked with government and they had cuts, staff was asked to make decisions about what to trim. Mr. Rooker commented that the best comparison for Albemarle would be other localities, noting that there is not a county of our size or even close to our size in the state operating on a tax rate of 66 cents. He added that that is probably the best kind of general look you can get at whether or not you’re being efficient. Mr. Wyant reiterated that people have expressed concern about what they are paying in property taxes. He said that many people are on fixed incomes, and cannot afford the tax increases. Mr. Bowerman said that staff should make their presentation, and then Board members can discuss what can be cut. Ms. Thomas stated that often the public does make their comments near the end of the budgeting process, when it is too late to make changes. She said that she has worked with VaCo to ensure that the state picks up their portion of the tab as there are several million dollars in this budget that are due explicitly to the unfunded mandates that the county has from the federal and state governments. Mr. Boyd said the Board should consider the fundamental question of whether or not it wants to build this whole budget from this point on, based on a nine percent increase, or whether it wants to look at maybe reducing it some and going back to the drawing board. Mr. Dorrier added that he thinks it is appropriate that the Board consider it and talk about it before the Capital Improvements Budget, which is one of the big ticket items. Mr. Rooker said that on April 6th, the Board would decide on a proposed budget and tax rate, and that goes to final hearing two weeks later. The Board is not locked into anything right now; they have not made a recommendation right now. He added that there is room for a little over a two-cent tax cut in the current budget. Mr. Rooker emphasized that it comes down to making decisions on services, citing the goal of 1.5 police officers per thousand as being one item that added expenditures to the budget. If the Board is going to effectively cut the budget, it cannot be adding everything that everybody brings before them. Mr. Boyd noted that Mr. Wyant’s point was not to cut the budget, but to reduce the amount of increase in it. Mr. Boyd added that there are people who cannot keep absorbing large increases in their property tax. Mr. Rooker expressed concern that the state is not paying their share for many services such as Social Services, the Commonwealth’s Attorney, and Sheriff’s Department. If the county could get out from under that, he is sure the Board could find an easy way to cut the budget and the tax rate. __________ March 16, 2005 (Adjourned Meeting from March 14, 2005) (Page 2) School Board Budget Mr. Gordon Walker, Chairman of the School Board, presented the 2005-06 budget request to the Board of Supervisors. He also introduced School Board Vice-Chair Sue Friedman. He reported that a survey conducted by the county last year indicates that a large majority of the population believe the schools are doing a good job with education. Mr. Walker explained the School Board budgeting process as: (1) needs are identified and a budget is proposed. Through the process of identifying needs, parents are engaged in that process as well as the general public, and grandparents and other community members are also involved; (2) the School Board goes through an objective review process, and then votes; the School Board unanimously agreed to put forward the budget as presented today; (3) the Board of Supervisors reviews the budget and allocates revenue; and (4) the School Board takes the revenue made available and approves a balanced budget. Mr. Walker said that during this process, School Board members consider (1) the resources available – both monetary and human resources; (2) what is necessary to meet School Board priorities; and (3) what can be done to improve the student learning experience. He reported that their achievements have been strong, with all schools fully accredited; students are college ready based on their placement test performance; Albemarle’s three high schools place in the top 500 in the country, and SAT scores are above state average as well as national. Mr. Walker said that in order to improve, “heightened attention to closing the achievement gap” is needed; students need to earn the credits necessary in K-12 to enable them to graduate; teachers need to be compensated fairly and competitively, as well as be given the proper technical assistance and training they need. He presented a graph that shows that all students are gaining, although a gap remains and that has been a focus of the School Board’s strategic planning process. Mr. Walker said that the highest priority in the school’s funding request is directed towards recruitment, retention, and increasing teacher competence. He thanked the Board for their support in accomplishing this. Mr. Walker emphasized that a good support staff is equally important. Mr. Walker presented comparative data on school staff, noting that Albemarle needs to hire more minority teachers as well as more ESL teachers to meet changing demographics and special education teachers. He presented information on the impact of aging baby boomers on the school’s budget, pointing out that 135 teachers over the next three years – 10 percent of the teacher workforce – will be qualified for full VRS benefits. Mr. Walker said that more than half of the teacher workforce has at least partial retirement benefits available to them. They need to go out and hire younger teachers and need to do a better job in retaining them. He explained that of approximately 130 new teachers hired on an annual basis, two-thirds of those are to replace teachers with less than five years experience. Mr. Walker said that through mentoring programs with U.Va., that turnover rate should be able to be reduced. He added that teacher vacancies in Virginia indicate the profession’s competitive environment, and offering better salaries, competency skills and mentoring can help attract and retain good teachers. Mr. Walker said that the considerations in their budgeting process included the impact of No Child Left Behind and Special Education legislation or “unfunded mandates,” noting that an additional $800,000 must be generated in order to meet these requirements alone. Mr. Boyd commented that the School Board has decided that that amount is what’s necessary to meet those requirements, and some school systems may not spend as much money. Mr. Walker responded that they may not do as well. Mr. Boyd said that the $800,000 is a subjective number. Dr. Castner stated that it is not subjective. Next year they have to add all of their testing to grade four, grade five, and grade six. Therefore, if they have to increase the amount of testing, they are going to need people to administrate those tests, and a lot of those logistical things – the scoring, etc., – is why they have that bubble. He added that what was happening in Virginia with the SOL’s got changed with No Child Left Behind. Mr. Boyd noted that there may be school systems that spend less. Mr. Walker noted that there may be school systems that spend more. Mr. Walker emphasized that the federal mandates for Special Education are also costly, and any new funding for New Child Left Behind is basically being “taken out of one pot and put into another.” Dr. Castner explained that the schools have itemized what adds up to $800,000 in the first page of their budget book. Mr. Walker reported that there have been some increases in revenue at the state level over the past several years in order to do SOL testing, but that still falls short of the Standards of Quality requirements that the state provides, but there is a gain there and it should be recognized. He said that locally, the School Board is aware of competing priorities in county government, but they need to advocate for what is necessary to meet goals and receive 60 percent of operating revenue. Mr. Walker said that they recognize that there are revenue limits, and their request does not recognize all the needs or desires that staff put forward, but just what is essential and necessary to do what the general public wants them to do in the schools. March 16, 2005 (Adjourned Meeting from March 14, 2005) (Page 3) Mr. Walker explained that the budget reflects focus in three areas: (1) competitive compensation to attract, retain and motivate a highly qualified workforce; (2) meet the expectations that exceed SOLs; and (3) continued focus on meeting the No Child Left Behind target. He added that the schools have set higher standards, and Albemarle County schools are among the top performing in the state, and the key to this has been quality curriculum and instruction. Mr. Walker noted that testing helps to identify students that need additional help, and will enable schools to provide individual instruction to ensure that kids do graduate and prepare to go into the workforce or further education. Mr. Walker said that the schools are requesting $9.3 million in additional revenue, with $2.3 in state dollars and the remaining being local revenue and money in the fund balance. Ms. Thomas asked if the General Assembly budget came up with the same figure. Dr. Castner replied that their funds were within $15,000 of the $2.3 million figure. Mr. Walker noted that health insurance is increasing by 12 percent; bringing up teacher pay will increase that by 9 percent; No Child Left Behind requirements, replacement of textbooks and computers, as well as additional bus fuel costs ($250,000) are also driving expenses up. He said that one assumption the School Board has made is no reduction in current services. Mr. Bowerman noted that Albemarle is #3 in their competitive market for salaries. Mr. Jackson Zimmerman addressed the Board and presented comparative data among 28 localities, using size, population, and expenses from 2002-03 as the benchmarks. He pointed out that Albemarle ranks 6 out of 28 in per pupil spending in the competitive market, and noted that tax dollar spending comparisons for K-12 schools are not totally accurate. Dr. Castner pointed out that Albemarle is second only to Loudoun County in test scores, and Albemarle is more “demographically complex.” Ms. Thomas asked if localities were still penalized for their “ability to pay” because of tax rates. Mr. Zimmerman said that he did not believe that the tax rate itself is a component of that; it is based on income and property values along with population. Using Madison County as an example, he said that they get 50 percent more from the state on a per-pupil basis. Mr. Boyd asked how Albemarle ranks in teacher pay compared to other schools. Mr. Rooker responded that he believes Albemarle was 14th, and the goal this year is to get that number up to 7th. Mr. Zimmerman said that it may not be “apples to apples” if total salaries versus individual salaries were used, because there may be instruction offered in Albemarle that are not offered elsewhere. Mr. Wyant noted that the transportation per pupil costs were high. Mr. Zimmerman replied that because Albemarle is the 5th largest county in the state in square mileage, those costs tend to be higher. Mr. Rooker said that transportation costs were discussed at the joint Board and School Board meeting, and picking children up in more central locations was one option discussed. Dr. Castner reported that there have to be lower teacher-student ratios because of ESL and Special Education students, and those costs have increased. He added that Albemarle’s reputation for having strong services – such as the autism class – have encouraged parents to move to the county. Mr. Walker presented information on revenues, showing that two-thirds is local support. He showed the distribution of expenditures, noting that 75 percent goes to classroom instruction. Mr. Walker pointed out that there is a $1.16 million difference in available revenue versus the school budget request. The School Board believes that this request is built on their successes to date, and a vote of confidence in their capacity to be able to prepare students for the future. He emphasized the School Board’s five goals: (1) to establish high standards and expectations of students and staff; (2) to provide an infrastructure that’s supportive of core values that have been established; (3) consistency across the district; (4) to raise staff competency to ensure a high level of learning in core subjects as well as electives; and (5) outreach to the community at large. Mr. Rooker commented on the thorough report, and noted the schools’ excellent performance. Mr. Dorrier said that at one point, the Board of Supervisors was planning to discuss the formula for funding. Mr. Rooker stated that through a meeting with the Chairs and Vice-Chairs of both boards, it was agreed that there would be work sessions held before fall to discuss the approach to the allocation of operating revenues, and developing the CIP. He said that it is something both boards need to revisit periodically as funding priorities change. Ms. Thomas commented that her emails to constituents address the impact of an urbanizing county, noting that rural counties spend a larger percentage on education, and more urban communities spend a smaller percentage. It is going to be increasingly hard to have as high of percentage of the county’s budget going to the school system. March 16, 2005 (Adjourned Meeting from March 14, 2005) (Page 4) Mr. Wyant asked which school had the largest enrollment. Mr. Walker replied that Albemarle High School has 1,782, and Yancey Elementary has 130 students. He noted that supporting the school budget does support rural communities. Mr. Rooker said that a school with a low population is more costly than a larger school. Mr. Boyd asked why the Stanford Nine tests were chosen, as he though schools were moving away from that testing structure. Dr. Castner responded that Stanford Nine compares as a standard across the country, and is a more rigorous standard than the SOLs. He noted that the SAT structure would be changing this year. Mr. Wyant asked how the “ability to pay” was derived. Mr. Zimmerman responded that that index is calculated bi-annually by the Department of Education, based on population, overall assessed value of real estate, income, and population – relative to the rest of the state. Ms. Thomas said that Albemarle is second only to Loudoun using that measure. Mr. Rooker commented that Albemarle spends $7,000 of the total $10,000 per pupil costs. He noted that even with a $300,000 home, the tax rate only provides a small portion of what it costs to educate a child in the county, not to mention all of the other services provided. Mr. Tucker stated that $10 million of the ability to pay monies go to revenue-sharing, and another $10 million goes to land-use tax. __________ Capital Improvements Plan Budget Mr. Bever began with an overview of the CIP budget, noting that the total of $152,723,000 includes the $10 million reserve balance as both a revenue and expenditure. Board members indicated that they did not understand the $10 million issue. Mr. Breeden explained that the $10 million is a “negative off of revenues,” so it is included as a revenue and an expenditure. Mr. Tucker clarified that even though it is a reserve, it is allocated somewhere as if it is an allocation. Mr. Boyd asked how much the Board was putting into the reserve this year. Mr. Breeden responded that he is not sure. Ms. White stated that there is a policy that additional revenues that come in are put into the CIP at the end of the year, and that immediately goes into the reserve. She noted that they try to keep $1.5 to $2 million in the reserve, and there is not a set amount that goes into the reserve each year. Mr. Boyd noted that it might be possible to offer tax relief from the CIP. Ms. Thomas commented that historically, the fund has been used “when things got tight.” She also said that using the CIP is irresponsible because the more that is taken out of it, the more it is likely the county will incur debt for things they cannot pay for as they go. Anything that the Board can do as a “pay as you go” is saving the taxpayer money over anything that we’d have to borrow. Ms. White mentioned that the policy has been that at least three percent of general fund revenues into the capital program each year. Mr. Rooker noted that that is important as far as AAA bond rating goes. Ms. Thomas said that it is laborious work to build the CIP fund back up after it is depleted. Mr. Bever pointed out that the biggest expenditure shown would be for schools, at 40 percent. He stated that the discussion to follow on individual expenditures would go by functional area concentrating on the period from 2005-06 to 2009-10. Ms. Thomas noted that the budget could be affected by delaying the onset of some CIP projects. Mr. Bever explained that the court renovations – Juvenile & Domestic Relations Court, Levy Building, and Court Square renovations – are the first priority projects. Ms. Thomas asked if the sally-port project could be postponed. Mr. Foley responded that it has been moved up to try to coordinate with the other renovations. Mr. Rooker said that the funding for the facility renovations is to be coordinated with the city. Mr. Foley stated that the sally-port is 100 percent funded by the county, but Albemarle is coordinating with the city on the Juvenile Court project. Mr. Bever presented information on the Public Safety area and illustrated which projects are new: Station 11 technology projects – security system upgrade that includes a station alerting system and a fiber- optic connection at the station ($161,000 in 05-06). He noted that those issues have been corrected for Stations 12, 13, and 14, so that expense will not recur. Mr. Bever said that there is also money for a $20,000 study to combine the fire and rescue stations on Seminole Trail. Mr. Foley pointed out that they have been replacing equipment, and those costs will even out over March 16, 2005 (Adjourned Meeting from March 14, 2005) (Page 5) time, although there will be some fluctuation. Mr. Rooker noted that over time, the figures presented do show greatly varying amounts from year to year. Mr. Dan Eggleston pointed out that several vehicles may come up for replacement in the same year, which causes a spike in the budget. Mr. Breeden noted that if an existing fleet is replaced at one time, it is very likely to come up for replacement again at the same time. Ms. Thomas asked about the money in the revolving loan program for these items. Mr. Breeden replied that the balance in the program was mostly wiped out, with the remainder ($150,000 approximately) going into the CIP. Mr. Rooker suggested that Mr. Tucker run through the process by which the budget is determined. Mr. Tucker explained that the department or agency heads involved in having capital needs make requests in early fall for a five and ten year period, and develop the timing for the programming to take place or when the needs may occur. He said that those recommendations go to the CIP Technical Committee – comprised mainly of staff from the schools, Office of Management and Budget, and Board of Supervisors members. That committee makes recommendations to Mr. Tucker, who then shares it with the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Rooker pointed out that a number of projects on the list were approved in prior years, and are on the list because they are just now coming on-line. Mr. Breeden said that the CIP is updated every two years, with the off years being used to consider project updates or emergency projects. Mr. Tucker stated that the Board actually adopts the 2005-06 Capital Budget, or some projects may be moved out to later years to free up revenue for other items. Mr. Rooker asked if there was a list of new projects. Mr. Breeden stated that they are listed as they go along. Mr. Rooker commented that it would be helpful to have a list of “new” items proposed to be added to the CIP. Mr. Boyd asked about the new fire station funding, and asked if it was driven by population. Mr. Foley responded that they have placed the locations to best meet response standards in the development areas, citing the fact that the northern station has no coverage in that development area within the five- minute response standard. Mr. Boyd asked if the county was ahead or behind in building stations. Mr. Tucker responded that the county is always behind. Mr. Bowerman asked if the Pantops proposal includes any city participation. Mr. Foley responded that it is assumed the city will pay half of the construction cost, but the county is delaying the project while that is being determined. He noted that the northern station is in the design phase, and the county is moving forward now with that one. Mr. Rooker said that building fire stations is an example of capital expenditures that have future operating costs associated with them. If the Board does not want to provide some of these services, the time to make the decisions is before we start putting the footers in the ground for the buildings, because the operating expense follows from that decision to make the capital investment. Mr. Foley mentioned that this plan was put together on the premise that the city contract would phase out in 2010. Mr. Boyd wondered if the tax revenue brought by the additional housing that is generating the need for additional fire stations would actually offset the cost of the new stations. Mr. Rooker responded that it would not because it is residential, and because of the school situation. Mr. Bever continued with his report, noting that the SPCA contribution is $50,000 annually to the shelter, with one more year beyond this to complete the county’s five-year commitment. He said that there is no funding for the police firing range in FY 05-06, but that would pick back up in FY 06-07, based on feasible timelines for completion for each phase of that project. He added that some police video cameras and mobile data computers are also funded in the CIP. Mr. Bever said that future projects in FY 09-10 include Station 14, the Ivy fire substation. Mr. Bever explained the Public Works functional area CIP needs, noting that new projects include the COB-McIntire renovations, which has two phases including Lane Auditorium, and the main county building renovations to take place in FY 07. He noted that ongoing projects include the Ivy Landfill remediation at $640,000 in FY-06, which reflects decrease costs in the operating budget and increased costs to capital contributions. Mr. Wyant asked what was planned for the Old Crozet School. Mr. Foley responded that there is no plan at this time, as they are waiting for discussions about the library in Crozet to take place. Mr. Rooker said that the renovation of the main county building is not pressing, except for perhaps March 16, 2005 (Adjourned Meeting from March 14, 2005) (Page 6) the auditorium. Ms. Thomas suggested postponing the first phase of the county building renovations, and other Board members agreed. Mr. Tucker noted that combining the Community Development office with other departments is the primary purpose for the main building renovations, as well as the need for auditorium improvements. Mr. Foley added that a decision on the auditorium renovation would be the most timely, as project architects would begin the process soon. He also said that they are in the process of a renovation that involves the Community Development department moving into the police station. Mr. Dorrier asked what a year’s delay would do, and asked if it would cost more money. Mr. Breeden said that you might incur some inflationary costs for construction. Mr. Boyd asked about the possibility of incorporating the tax rate reduction into the calculations. Mr. Tucker responded that it would be best for the Board to decide what they would like the tax rate to be, and he can work up a budget that meets the revenue. Mr. Rooker commented that there is a general government project subtotal of $11,935,000, and if $2 million were taken out, what would be saved. Ms. White responded that some of it is debt service, and some of it is one-time monies. The only way you are going to save money in the operating budget is to take out the recurring revenues and change that allocation formula of how much money actually goes into it every year. To get ongoing revenues, you would be reducing that formula. Mr. Rooker said that the savings would be realized not for delaying projects, but for deciding not to do them. Mr. Bever presented information on future projects, including three recycling centers for FY 2007- 08 at $250,000 each for the northern, southern, and eastern areas of the county. Mr. Bever said that for the Community and Neighborhood Development functional area, there is $2.5 for the revenue-sharing road program, $3.9 for local and regional transportation improvements, and $1.1 for Meadow Creek Parkway and Route 22/250 Intersection projects; the last two are offset 100 percent by revenues. He explained that there is a total of $7.5 million in FY 06-10 for transportation projects. Mr. Bever said that Neighborhood Plan implementation is cited at $2.6 million, with sidewalk construction to total $2.7 million, and $1.2 in roadway landscaping. Mr. Foley noted that the roadways are public roads VDOT is building, and the county is having to pay for the landscaping, whereas landscaping along private roads is paid for by developers. Mr. Bever said that in the Human Development area, there is one project – a $40,100 annual contribution to PVCC. He noted that as of August 2004, PVCC has indicated the project is on schedule and would begin in 2005-06 with occupancy in 2007. Mr. Bever reported that the Parks, Recreation, and Culture function area includes several new projects, noting that that department did some reconfiguration of projects to keep the bottom line the same in 2005-06. He explained that some of the new projects include the Patricia Byrom forest, park enhancements that reflect a shift in funding from the county athletic area based on a survey done by Parks and Recreation to show what county needs were; Mint Springs fishing accessibility will take place in 2006- 07, and the Office of Management and Budget will be working on a grant to help offset some of the costs; in 2008-09 the Crozet growth area facilities would be added. Mr. Boyd asked why funding for Patricia Byrom forest came ahead of funding for Preddy Creek. Mr. Tucker replied that some of it is related to a donation the county received for the forest to accept the land. He noted that Preddy Creek had been slated for a reservoir years ago. Mr. Bever said that it was determined that there was still a need for a park near the proposed Southern Elementary, but that project has been postponed because building the school was delayed. Ms. Thomas expressed concern about the increasing cost of land in that area. Mr. Tucker noted that he has heard there may be larger projects in that area, and the county may be able to get a proffer for a park in that area. Mr. Breeden said that he would need to keep it in the planning, though. Mr. Boyd asked what the genesis for the park plan was. Mr. Tucker responded that based on standards for park needs, the population is in need of some type of recreation in that area. He emphasized that the plan is for a large park of 15 acres or so, not just a playground. Mr. Dorrier suggested looking at land near Monticello High School and Tandem. Mr. Tucker said that when the land for Monticello was purchased, there was discussion about having shared fields, etc. Mr. Dorrier asked Al Reaser, of Building Services, to shed some light on the use of the school property. Mr. Reaser responded that all the fields at Monticello High School are irrigated and used for football, soccer, etc. This is an additional need. March 16, 2005 (Adjourned Meeting from March 14, 2005) (Page 7) Mr. Rooker pointed out that in the past, parks were primarily school facilities, and in the Jouett district there is no park separate from the school. Mr. Tucker said that the Monticello fields are available at any time. Ms. Thomas commented that the Neighborhood Model depends on urban areas having amenities and attractive aspects to them that make them a place people want to live, and parks are part of that. Mr. Tucker said that the county is also hoping to provide a facility jointly with the YMCA that would include swimming, etc. Mr. Rooker informed attendees that the YMCA had wanted the county to partner with them in a $30 million recreational facility, but the county indicated they could not afford it, so the county is considering donating land in the Monticello school area for the YMCA to place a facility. Mr. Bever presented information on ongoing Parks and Recreation CIP contributions, including the Paramount Theatre, the Greenway Program, river and lake access improvements, and maintenance of projects. He said that funding exists in the 2006-07 for possible land acquisition for a new park and perhaps meeting needs that the YMCA would not include. Mr. Bever said that the county has committed $424,000 for the Crozet library in FY 05-06, with a total project cost of $5.9 million; the county has already committed $427,000. Mr. Breeden clarified that that commitment includes acquisition and design planning for the library. Ms. White added that the library may serve as a focal point for the Crozet urban area, as designated in that town’s master plan. Mr. Foley mentioned that there is a group in the community working on that downtown plan currently. Mr. Rooker noted that the library would have an ongoing operating expense. He asked if the Board wanted to go forward with all of these library projects. Ms. Thomas pointed out that the Northside Library and Crozet Library are replacements, whereas the 29 North Corridor Library is brand new. Ms. White mentioned that a lot of the library projects have been moved into the “out” years, which are very flexible as to what projects are done when. Mr. Rooker noted that North Pointe has proposed proffering a library site. Mr. Wyant said that it would be helpful to acquire property if possible. Mr. Breeden noted that there is some time before those decisions need to be made. Mr. Foley mentioned that the CIP Technical Committee suggested merging the two northern libraries into one facility. Mr. Wyant asked if the internet had reduced library usage at all. Ms. Thomas responded that it had not, as people still enjoy reading books. Ms. White added that circulation numbers continue to increase. Mr. Bever reported that the City-View internet access at $100,000 is a new project, and will also include an additional $10,000 already accounted for in the operating budget. He said that ongoing projects include upgrades to the GIS and business key systems, as well as the county computer upgrade. Mr. Bever pointed out that this is different than what is in the operating budget, and covers hardware, wiring, etc. to support the networks. Mr. Boyd asked if the City-View package was up and running. Mr. Foley responded that the core package is in place, and this is a module to add to it. Mr. Boyd said that he has not heard positive feedback on the system. Mr. Foley explained that it is a brand new package, and there are issues with it, as well as a “learning curve.” He added that when the county gets past that, it is going to have a lot of efficiencies that we’ll realize, but this has been difficult. Ms. Thomas said that she had received a complex email intended for Susan Thomas, and she forwarded it to Bill Fritz, who said City-View would enable him to answer it quickly. Mr. Tucker commented that staff can use if quite readily and eventually the public will be able to use it also. Mr. Foley pointed out that this system will be able to answer more data-oriented and administrative questions, such as how long an applicant has been in the system, turn around on site plan reviews, etc. Mr. Bever reported that ACE is being funded $350,000 with tourism funds from FY 06-10, and said that Mr. Foley would present slides on ACE later in the meeting. Mr. Bever said that the CIP calls for $450,000 for stormwater control measures in FY 05-06, with approximately $3.6 million in the first five years. He explained that these control facilities include collection and conveyance structures, such as March 16, 2005 (Adjourned Meeting from March 14, 2005) (Page 8) ponds, basins, underground pipes, and above-ground channels and ditches. This is for the capital component of the stormwater program. Mr. Rooker noted that over a 10-year period, $14 million is budgeted for stormwater control, as a result of state and federal regulations. Mr. Foley mentioned that that cost reflects expanded programs that the Board has indicated they want to do county-wide. Mr. Foley presented information on transportation, specifically public transportation from a regional and local approach. He commented that it needs to be discussed whether to use CIP to begin using local dollars to fund construction of roads, which would be a new approach for the county. He said that both the CIP and the transportation program establish separate regional and local programs, to try to address work on different levels of road construction. Mr. Foley indicated that the funding at this point primarily includes study and design funding. Mr. Foley reported that the CIP does fully fund the revenue-sharing program, which has not been the case in the past, putting $500,000 in local money to pull down an equal match from VDOT for roads the county wants to use it for. He added that the General Assembly has doubled that amount, so that $1 million could be available, but cautioned that each year localities must apply for that funding. Mr. Foley asked the Board to consider whether they want to use local funding in the CIP to accelerate road construction, and whether they want to do that on regional projects or local also. Mr. Foley presented slides on the county’s top 21 road projects, as approved by the Board, and grouped them into categories. Regional projects – Mr. Foley said that of the 21 projects, Meadow Creek, the Southern Parkway, Hillsdale Drive, and some of the 29/250 projects are considered regional by the study group, according to Wayne Cilimberg. Mr. Foley said that there are some projects not on that list – such as a new interchange related to Meadow Creek that needs further study and an Eastern Connector that is not currently in the plans right now. He showed the second grouping as being projects under or nearing construction – Airport Road, Jarman’s Gap Road; and the third grouping is projects dependent on development and preliminary projects in the rural areas. Mr. Rooker said that he has been working with the Metropolitan Planning Organization to help fund some of the projects of regional significance, and the General Assembly has said they will “help communities that are helping themselves.” He mentioned that the county has put in $2.5 million already for the Meadow Creek Parkway, which was estimated to cost $10 million in 2000 and is now estimated to cost $20 million. Mr. Rooker said that a new interchange would qualify for federal funds because it is on Route 250, and that is one of the only ways the MPO sees that might get that project funded and built with the Meadow Creek Parkway. He added that projects like the Southern Parkway and Eastern Connector might qualify as revenue-sharing projects because they may be joint projects with the city. Mr. Rooker emphasized that the inflation factor for road-building is a lot higher than current interest rates, and pointed out that the $2.5 million of secondary road funds allocated in 1985 would only build $450,000 of roads. He indicated that creating a bondable stream of revenue to build some of these projects will put the county ahead of the game. Mr. Bowerman commented that Mr. Rooker has explained that several times before. Mr. Rooker asked Mr. Davis if the county creates a local service district, could any revenue-sharing qualified projects get a commitment from the state that would allow the county to build some of these projects. Mr. Davis responded that the legal mechanism to allow for revenue bonds to be generated would be the creation of a transportation district, which could possibly be created solely in the county. He added that the basis for revenue bonds generated by a transportation district would have to be either an independent revenue source or a contractual source of revenue that could be either a contract with the city, county, or VDOT to pull in a revenue stream. The county and VDOT obligation would be subject to non- appropriation, which creates a little bit more of a risk with that type of revenue bond. Mr. Bowerman said he thought the Board could also create a revenue district. Mr. Davis responded that a service district could be created, and while it cannot issue bonds, it can establish a property tax to generate dedicated revenue. You could create a transportation district and an overlapping service district to generate revenue for a transportation district, and that money could be used as a revenue source for the transportation district to issue bonds. Mr. Rooker said that regardless of the mechanism, it is going to be a burden on county revenues. Mr. Bowerman commented that bonds are the only way to go. Mr. Tucker said that the central question is whether the Board wants to consider using some of the CIP reserve in dedicating it to transportation construction for the first time. Mr. Rooker pointed out that it is important to use the proffer system to help build roads also. Mr. Dorrier noted that if the county starts using local funds for secondary roads or primary roads, March 16, 2005 (Adjourned Meeting from March 14, 2005) (Page 9) the state is definitely not going to put any money back into it. He thinks the county should put pressure on the state to try to get the state funding. Mr. Rooker replied that the state is saying now that they will provide better funding to areas that will put some of their money in to match their own needs. Ms. Thomas said that she agrees with Mr. Dorrier, adding that citizens need to pressure their state legislators to find revenue for roads, if they do not want their real estate taxes to pay for roads. Mr. Bowerman commented that in the absence of any state aid, the only way the county is going to build any roads is with the scenarios that Mr. Rooker has laid out. That is just the reality; it is cheaper to finance them than it is to wait to build them. Mr. Foley presented information on projects that would be significantly impacted by local money: Georgetown Road ($724,000 more needed to be allocated); Proffitt Road, Ivy Road, Eastern Avenue Bridge in Crozet, and future critical connections in the master plans. Mr. Foley explained that the county wants to: continue to push for additional VDOT funding; maximize leverage state revenue-sharing dollars; utilize local funds for preliminary studies and transportation design; rely on proffers for some road improvements (if related to rezoning); and pursue regional solutions for important regional projects. Mr. Foley reiterated his question of whether local monies should be used for regional projects, local projects, both, or none. He added that a secondary question is how projects should be accomplished if local funds are used – a pay as you go basis or through bond financing. Mr. Foley mentioned that the Industrial Development Authority or establishment of a transportation district could provide necessary funding. Mr. Rooker asked which means would be better. Mr. Davis responded that a transportation district has a different structure, but does not have any real advantage over the IDA option. Ms. Thomas pointed out that regardless of which option is chosen, it forces the county to add a great burden onto the real estate tax basis. Mr. Boyd said that he favors a general obligation bond to elicit public feedback. Ms. Thomas said the only way the Board is going to deal with the tax crisis is to stop putting new obligations on our real estate tax. She thinks transportation ought to be a burden put on the people who are using facilities, and the easiest way to do that is a gas tax. Mr. Rooker stated that if the county had enabling authority, he would be in favor of the gas tax, but they do not have that authority. Mr. Dorrier said that he doesn’t understand why everyone’s giving up on the state. Mr. Rooker responded that VDOT is funding less and less construction projects, and is focusing more on maintenance. Ms. Thomas added that the state will not be able to pull down federal monies as less funds are allocated to road construction. Mr. Dorrier mentioned that in the 1920’s and 1930’s, there were local roads, and Senator Byrd helped create the state road system. Mr. Rooker said that other localities have begun to use local funds for roads. Mr. Foley clarified that in the local transportation program, the Board set aside $1.5 million in case they decided to allocate that for road construction. Mr. Rooker requested staff to come back with concrete suggestions about a bond program, and create a placeholder in the CIP, setting aside $1 million for revenue-sharing. Mr. Bowerman suggested that the county start funding Georgetown and other “isolated fixes” while continuing to work as strongly as possible with the state legislature to either give Albemarle the authority to give a local gas user tax to put the burden “on the people who use the roads.” Mr. Dorrier asked if Hampton or Northern Virginia had a referendum on that. Ms. Thomas replied that there were concerns about where the money would go in those situations, and a lack of trust emerged. Mr. Rooker said that if the state decided to impose another 5-cent gas tax, that money would go to the state, and some of it might come back to localities based on an allocation formula. He added that currently, Albemarle doesn’t get nearly what is put in locally in the current 18-cent tax. Urban Infrastructure – Mr. Foley reported that the level of funding has not been increased for this in the CIP, and this is supposed to cover Neighborhood Plan implementation, sidewalks, street lights, and March 16, 2005 (Adjourned Meeting from March 14, 2005) (Page 10) roadway landscaping. He added that there is money set aside for future master plans that has not been used yet. Mr. Rooker suggested that the Board have a CIP work session prior to the joint meeting with the School Board. Mr. Foley stated that the county has committed to 100 percent of basic fire and rescue operating costs, 100 percent of emergency vehicle replacement, 100 percent forgiveness of previous debt, 100 percent of volunteer insurance coverage, turnout gear replacement, training, and a few other small items. He explained that the county wants the stations to focus on responding to emergency calls, maintaining a level of training, and fundraising just for buildings instead of operations. Mr. Bowerman commented that there have been tremendous strides in the county’s fire protection services. Mr. Foley asked if the Board wanted to assume responsibility for building repair of fire stations also, noting that Stony Point had requested help. He mentioned that the Seminole Trail building may need total replacement, but replacing roofs and driveways has been left to the stations. Ms. Thomas asked how much more the agreements have cost the county versus a few years ago. Mr. Foley replied that that information would be available on Monday. In response to Mr. Boyd’s question, Mr. Foley explained that the county had agreed to consider all requests for replacement on a case-by-case basis. Mr. Bowerman asked Stony Point Fire Chief Ted Armentrout if he had difficulty raising funds at his station compared to other stations. Mr. Armentrout responded that the service area is 57 square miles, mostly rural, with a population of 4,500 people, and said that they raise about $25,000 each year. Mr. Bowerman said that the county has funded stations’ requests in the past, as each has a different ability to raise funds. Mr. Tucker suggested adding this item to the list for discussion at the next work session. Mr. Foley presented information on the ACE program, noting that in the past $350,000 has been put towards it with the Board’s target being $1 million. He said that $650,000 of end of year general fund monies has been added to reach that target. He asked the Board to consider whether they want to use one-time monies or ongoing revenues to continue reaching that $1 million goal. Mr. Foley added that the General Assembly has appropriated $10 million to the Virginia Land Conservation Foundation, and there is $2.5 million available in matching funds, although that program is competitive and may only yield $250,000 or so. Mr. Foley noted that there have been 7 or 8 applications for easements submitted just this week, and each one is considered individually. Ms. Thomas said she would like to keep the $1 million local funding, noting that inflation is a factor in this program also. Mr. Boyd asked about carry-over monies that go into the program. Mr. Foley replied that he can furnish that information, but said it is also available on the website. Mr. Breeden pointed out that since the program’s inception in 2001, the county has contributed $1 million every year except 2003 when $800,000 was committed. In response to Mr. Boyd’s question about what had been spent, Mr. Breeden informed him that there are projects that will take those funds once they are finalized. Mr. Rooker said the process takes quite a while. The problem is, if you cut back the allocation it may not affect what you could do this year, it may affect what you can do in two years, and as Ms. Thomas pointed out, the cost of property is accelerating. Mr. Dorrier stated that they should apply for grants. Mr. Tucker replied that they have applied for available grants, but does not expect to get them all as it is a competitive process. Mr. Bowerman asked about the $10 million appropriated for the grants, when only $2.5 is being given out. Mr. Foley responded that non-ACE state conservation programs would use the rest of those funds. School Capital Funds - Ms. White presented information on what the schools have requested in capital projects for the next five years, and what county staff is recommending. She noted that her office looked at what the schools had planned previously for CIP funds, and added 7 percent because that is the rate of revenue growth in the CIP. Ms. White explained that each year, the transfer to CIP increases each year by a certain amount based on revenue growth in schools and local government. March 16, 2005 (Adjourned Meeting from March 14, 2005) (Page 11) Ms. White explained that because of debt service obligations and school enrollment figures, the county did not feel it could fund the schools’ entire CIP request, especially in year five. She mentioned that the county is trying to stay below the average for AAA localities in expenditures, and the schools’ request put them “above that line.” Ms. White added that they have to reduce that debt service from the school division. Ms. White reported that she saw very little enrollment growth over the five years that really justified expansions for new schools; the FY 05 enrollment to the FY 10 enrollment is only about four students. There is capacity at the end of that ten-year period for the school-projected growth. She added that there is capacity in elementary, middle and high school, although there are issues with particular schools. Ms. White explained that they looked at what would be an “equitable funding mechanism” with the goals of maintaining debt within the AAA guidelines, allow local government debt to increase because there are increasing county unaddressed infrastructure needs, and fund debt service within approved capital funding allocation formula. She added that they also recognize the need to fund the maintenance for school facilities, and have spent a lot of money to improve them over the last few years. Ms. White added that the county will provide for enrollment growth as it’s needed. Ms. White presented information on total county-obligated debt, emphasizing the importance of balancing local government and school needs. They have to look at debt capacity and debt service, because those are the major factors that limit what the county can do. The bottom line number of projects is not as important as taking a look at debt service capability. She reported that the county currently has $118 million in obligated debt, and it is increasing at a fairly gradual rate. Ms. White said that currently, the schools have 72 percent of the obligated debt, and local government has only 28 percent. If the Board proceeds with the recommendation, that gap begins to narrow, and in the end of the five-year period of the CIP in FY 2010, that gap is slightly narrowed down to 60/40, and then it increasingly narrows as you go out five years. Mr. Rooker asked what projects have been taken out. Ms. White said that what has been recommended for the CIP is not specific projects, and it is reduced by percentage, not by project. Mr. Breeden emphasized that county staff has developed a strategy, not a specific formula. Mr. Rooker stated that a formula would be the wrong way to go, and the funding should be based on specific needs. Mr. Breeden responded that they are not at the point of recommending a formula, and probably a 7 percent increase can be absorbed, and they left it to the schools to decide which projects to fund. Ms. White said that “this is a target” as a way to begin to reduce that ratio. Mr. Bowerman commented that this is basically holding the schools to a “constant level” while recognizing that there are more unfunded needs in general government, approximately $35 million now. Ms. White pointed out that the school’s obligated debt would stay the same, and the 7 percent is not yearly growth. Mr. Breeden said that using an example of $1 million for school projects would be added onto $7,000 each year, and that additional amount is not compounded. Mr. Boyd said that he does not believe the formula doesn’t need to be split between county government and schools, as those needs fluctuate. He would rather see is a formula that is going to allocate to the CIP. Mr. Breeden commented that they already have that formula. Mr. Boyd replied that that formula is based on property taxes though, not necessarily based on growth in population and school enrollment. Mr. Bowerman said that what it does illustrate, though, is the fact that the county has in effect underfunded the capital needs of general government because school needs have been met disproportionately. Ms. White said that schools are able to maintain their total obligated debt because of the lack of enrollment increase and the retirement of some of that existing debt. Mr. Boyd asked what the debt service is on $1 million. Mr. Breeden replied that the rule of thumb is 5 percent. Ms. White reported that currently the schools have 85 percent of the debt service, with local government at 15 percent, and following staff’s recommendations would reduce that gap to 62 percent/38 percent within five years, and to 54 percent/44 percent in 10 years. She emphasized that this would allow the county to keep its AAA bond rating. Ms. White explained that they have met with school officials and staff to discuss recommendations to help meet their needs with specific school projects within the debt service levels. She pointed out that two projects that have been removed from the CIP are Southern Elementary and Western Elementary, which remove $13 million and $14 million respectively from the first five years out in the CIP. Ms. White said that the $1.6 million already available to the schools would allow them to build to capacity at Cale Elementary, and $25,000 has been put into the land acquisition fund for elementary schools in FY 10. She March 16, 2005 (Adjourned Meeting from March 14, 2005) (Page 12) clarified that that amount is probably for planning. Mr. Rooker commented that the more you can buy and control school sites now, the better off the county is in the long run. Ms. White said that the funding in the CIP will increase from $7 to $10 million, and Albemarle High School could use that additional money for expansion. Mr. Reaser noted that two high schools will have declining enrollment, and one is increasing, so they are anticipating a redistricting. He added that not expanding Albemarle would limit redistricting. Mr. Rooker asked why there would be redistricting to add more students to Albemarle. Mr. Reaser replied that if they do not redistrict or add on to Western Albemarle, that school’s enrollment will be 1200 which is 200 over capacity over five years. Mr. Rooker said that five years from now, the figures show less enrollment at the high school level than there is today. Mr. Reaser said that Western Albemarle is currently over capacity, and they could meet an immediate need, but in 8 or 9 years, the long-term will see more students because of potential growth. Currently they have 300 more 9th grade students than 3rd grade students. As that bubble moves through the high school, you’ll see that decline in year five, and then you’ll have the enrollment increasing per grade in grades K-2. Mr. Rooker stated that he thinks they need to look hard at building capacity in the face of projected declines in enrollment. Mr. Boyd mentioned that several years ago, live births did not generate the expected enrollment in Kindergarten, and wondered if that might happen again. Mr. Reaser agreed that the Kindergarten enrollment was lower, partly because of private schools, but those students are coming back to the county in grades 2 through 12. He added that it is a real challenge now because of such diverse numbers, and they are trying to avoid a trailer park at Albemarle High School. Mr. Rooker commented that if enrollment stays steady or declines, it would enable the county to fulfill other needs. Ms. Diane Behrens said that the capacity addition to Albemarle would allow them to get rid of the eight trailers that are there now. Mr. Reaser stated that there will be 20 fewer students five years from now overall, but the system will gain 221 elementary students. Ms. White pointed out that the revised agreed-upon funding for the schools is $60.9 million, representing an $814,000 difference that has a minimal impact on debt service. Ms. White concluded her presentation. She said the committee feels that with the agreement with the schools, they have worked out a CIP program that works, increasing debt service levels and ability to borrow, and funds all the other projects in their CIP. Mr. Boyd asked for justification of the $2 million increase from $7 million to $9 million. Mr. Reaser responded that the major difference in the request for the increase is the schools did not change their CIP two years ago, and that came forward at the same dollar value last year. There have been tremendous construction cost increases that have driven up project costs. Mr. Breeden said that there have been 15 to 20 percent increases in construction project costs over the last few years. He added that the capability of contractors to meet the demand is having a huge impact on that also. Ms. Thomas mentioned that she gets monthly updates on University construction projects, and there are a huge number of projects locally simultaneously occurring. (At 4:30 p.m., the Board took a recess, and reconvened at 4:50 p.m.) __________ General Government Budget Issues (continued from prior work session) Ms. Vinzant presented information on the Parks, Recreation and Culture functional area, with libraries representing almost half that budget. She explained that there is a 12.7 percent increase in operating and capital, with 3.88 percent of it being operations increases, and the remainder being capital costs. Ms. Vinzant said that the changes that happened in the Parks and Recreation department include a full-year of the salary reclassification implementation, and provides $71,400 in new trail development and maintenance equipment and supplies, based on community survey results. She added that much of that is a one-time cost. Ms. Vinzant reported that the Parks and Recreation budget does absorb $59,000 in anticipated costs anticipated costs resulting from CIP projects, including river and lake access projects; and because of the inmate workforce, they are able to use their current budget for that without adding it as a new expenditure. March 16, 2005 (Adjourned Meeting from March 14, 2005) (Page 13) Mr. Boyd mentioned that the schools are adding a $41,000 position for someone to coordinate using the inmate workforce. Mr. Breeden said that that is totally unrelated to the program Ms. Vinzant mentioned. Ms. Vinzant stated that there are several new library positions – a Central Library outreach manager, a part-time Technical Support Specialist, and part-time Assistant to help with outreach to nursing homes and assisted living facilities. She added that other agencies in this functional area were given 3 percent increases; two were not recommended for funding – First Night Virginia and the U.Va. Museum for Art – because $443,000 in tourism funds was used for these agencies. Ms. Thomas asked how the tourism funds are allocated. Mr. Breeden explained that those funds are separated into their own fund, with 3 cents into tourism and 2 cents to general operations under the ordinance the county adopted; $350,000 of the tourism portion funds the ACE programs that qualify, as well as the items Ms. Vinzant mentioned totaling $443,000. Mr. Dorrier said that Richard Herskowitz of the Virginia Film Festival had mentioned to him the increase from $10,000 to $15,000, which he had requested so that a national publicity campaign could be done to bring in more tourists nationally. Ms. White noted that that was part of their application. Mr. Dorrier said that at least half of the film festival budget comes from the University. Mr. Rooker commented that it is difficult to go into the charitable agency requests. Ms. White explained that the festival should generate some revenues, so staff did not recommend the increase. Mr. Wyant pointed out that the libraries received $150,000 additional last year. Ms White commented that their full budget was funded last year, and they have had significant increases in their operating costs, including health insurance. Board members asked if other localities were coming up with their portion in the cost-sharing formula for the libraries. Ms. White noted that it is based on circulation. Mr. Breeden stated that the city is recommending fully funding their portion of the library’s total request from them. Community Development - Mr. Bever reported that $359,000 for stormwater control mandates was moved to General Services. He said that the same trends hold true for salaries and benefits increases. Mr. Boyd asked if reclassification happened in every department. Mr. Foley replied that several areas were done, and Community Development was done because of the restructuring in the department and personnel responsibilities. Mr. Bever noted that overtime wages were also increased, adding $50,000 for peak demand periods. He said that the salary increases are due to the reclassification and 4.4 percent merit increase. Mr. Bever said that $20,000 was added for groundwater monitoring of wells, which is new for this year, and $10,000 was added for City View enhancement. He mentioned that there is $10,800 in operating costs associated with other CIP projects, and this money might be moved to General Services because it deals with maintenance on urban infrastructure projects. Mr. Rooker suggested having information on the justification for baseline salary increases. Mr. Tucker and Mr. Foley agreed to provide that information. Mr. Wyant asked what the $20,000 was for in groundwater monitoring. Mr. Tucker responded that that is in conjunction with the ordinance, and will provide money for groundwater data collection and actual drilling of wells. Mr. Mark Graham explained that there would be some long-term monitoring wells, especially in light of new developments. Mr. Wyant commented that using individual existing wells would provide a better overall picture of water quality. Mr. Rooker responded that the Board has wanted to do both, and there need to be county- monitored wells and staff to gather data from the wells of landowners participating in any monitoring programs. Mr. Graham said that the county wants to add two wells a year, in conjunction with development projects in development areas. He said that staff has been performing well monitoring since February. Mr. Rooker mentioned that he uses “etest.com” for his own personal well each year, costing $125.00. Mr. Graham said that they are using GIS information for 76 sites in the county, and are working to capture any permits that come in. Mr. Wyant commented that the county does not know where all the wells are in relationship to drainfields. March 16, 2005 (Adjourned Meeting from March 14, 2005) (Page 14) Mr. Bowerman asked how well levels could be checked without pulling up pipes, etc. Mr. Graham responded that there are electronic sensors that can do it, or put a stopper in the old fashioned way. Office of Housing – Mr. Bever reported that the Family Self-Sufficiency Coordinator was not approved by HUD, which results in a decrease of one full-time position and an overall decrease in salary expenditures. He said that the county continues to place $250,000 in the Albemarle Housing Trust Fund, $50,000 of which was transferred from the PHA budget. Mr. Bever said that there is a 94.5 percent increase in the Charlottesville Transit Service to $228,000. Mr. Rooker commented that the county should give the city an increase based on usage. Mr. Foley said that there is additional information available on this item presented Monday. Mr. Bever reported that soil and water has a 10.4 percent increase, because of a reclassification and merit pool increase for the one position the county funds, and a 3 percent departmental operating increase. He said that the Thomas Jefferson Planning District gets a 12.6 percent increase due to per capita rate increases to 54 cents – the first jump in 18 years. Mr. Foley mentioned that stormwater related expenses in the operating budget – the ENS program, the stormwater plan review, the water resources manager, etc. – will all be part of the new stormwater program. He noted that that will give the program $881,000 in general operating costs, in addition to capital costs of $450,000. It is a lot more focused program then the county has ever had before. Mr. Foley asked if the Board wanted to fund it this way, or set up a utility district or county-wide stormwater district. He said that annual operating costs for this would likely increase $400,000 total over the next five years, representing increases in existing and mandated program costs. A big part of that would be the expanded program for desired water quality improvement projects, including streambank repairs. Mr. Foley said that capital expenditures for stormwater management would increase $650,000 over that five-year period for new stormwater facilities, stream buffer and erosion projects, and watershed study and improvement projects. Mr. Foley said that there are two funding alternatives – incorporating into operating and capital budgets the cost of this program or setting up a stormwater management district that uses one penny or more of the tax rate to fund it, with the tax bills mentioning this allocation. He added that another option would be setting up an equivalent residential unit fee that would generate money by each house or dwelling unit. It creates a fee source of revenue rather than doing it based on the property tax. Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Graham who was taking a look at the drainage between Hillsdale Drive and Branchlands Drive to keep that clear. Mr. Graham responded that General Services (formerly Public Works) is inspecting that now, adding that some of the smaller drainage had not been looked at up to now. At this time the Board concluded its discussions and Mr. Tucker commented that the Board would continue its discussions on March 21 with other unfunded initiatives. _______________ Agenda Item No. 5. Adjourn. There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 5:30 p.m. ________________________________________ Chairman Approved by the Board of County Supervisors Date: 06/08/2005 Initials: DBM