Loading...
2005-03-21A March 21, 2005 (Adjourned Meeting from March 16, 2005) (Page 1) An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on March 21, 2005, beginning at 1:00 p.m. in Room 235, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. This meeting was adjourned from March 16, 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: Continuing Issues from Prior Work Sessions. Mr. Wyant said that he would like to see the Board look at cutting $2.6 million out of the total $255 million budget. He said that each department should decide what to cut. He would like to offer a motion to cut the budget by $2.6 million. Mr. Rooker stated that the Board needs to go through the budget process, with all the applicable presentations, and decide then whether or not to cut things out. The Board can cut them out. The Board makes those decisions. He mentioned that there is an itemized cost for each budget item, including new initiatives and CIP funding. Mr. Tucker said that staff’s presentation will show what the impact of reducing taxes two cents and four cents would do to the overall budget. Mr. Rooker said that he has been contacted by School Board members, who asked to have a joint meeting if taxes were recommended to be reduced more than two cents. Mr. Tucker stated that the staff presentation would show the impact to local government and schools. He noted that capital budget impacts would also be addressed, noting that the CIP reserve is “pretty significant.” __________ Mr. Tucker explained that Jim Hensley would be making comments about the public defender’s office. Mr. Rauzelle Smith, Chairman of the Public Defender’s Office Citizens Advisory Committee, addressed the Board. He requested that the Board “close the salary gap” between public defenders and prosecutors in the county, noting that the average pay of Albemarle County prosecutors is 53 percent higher than the public defender’s office, and secretaries make 60 percent more. Public defenders and prosecutors should be equal partners in the criminal justice system, but when it comes to compensation, clearly they are not. He emphasized that fair trials are a must, and the county should supplement the public defenders’ salaries the same way that they have done with prosecutors’ pay in the past. Mr. Smith said that it is regrettable that this must fall on localities to fund, noting that the state has not provided the necessary funding. Mr. Dorrier commented that once again, the state has shifted the burden to local government, even though the state set up the public defender’s office. He agreed that public defenders need to be compensated equally to prosecutors. Mr. Rooker mentioned that the local public defenders office covers both city and county clients, and agreed with Mr. Dorrier that this is part of a growing trend in which “the state is failing to meet its obligations” to pay its employees fairly. He mentioned $20 million of unfunded mandates for the schools and commented that “it’s criminal.” Ms. Thomas said it would be helpful to tell the city that the county has put this request on their short list. She does not think the county should do it alone. She does not like for the county to add to the real estate tax rate things that ought to have been picked up at the state level. Mr. Tucker mentioned that with the Commonwealth’s Attorney and Sheriff, the county has phased the cost in over a few years. He added that gradually, some positions have ended up fully funded by the county. __________ Mr. Breeden presented information on the retirees health insurance, noting that the teaching staff is already receiving some benefits from VRS – all teaching staff with over 15 years of service or more upon retirement gets $4 times the number of years of service per month, with a maximum of $1,440 per year. He said that if the county were to institute that, a rough estimate of costs for the coming year would be around $200,000. March 21, 2005 (Adjourned Meeting from March 16, 2005) (Page 2) Mr. Tucker said that Mr. Breeden calculated that figure with the assumption that everyone made it to 30 years. Mr. Breeden noted that he based the numbers using employees over 55 and assuming they would retire next year. Mr. Rooker added that it becomes a growing liability each year, unless you have deaths at the same rate as you have retirements. Mr. Boyd asked if the plan carried beyond age 65. Mr. Breeden replied that his calculations assume payment beyond age 65. Mr. Tucker mentioned that they had discussed ending the supplements when Medicare kicked in at age 65. Mr. Rooker asked if anyone has looked into the legality of stopping payments at that point. Mr. Breeden responded that the county’s health care consultants are looking into it and will get back with a definitive answer, although they have indicated they do not anticipate it to be a problem. He clarified that his model includes payments to remaining school employees not under VRS and existing retirees to provide the same benefits as retired teachers get, coming up with the estimated cost of $200,000. Mr. Tucker commented that that plan is similar to what city employees are receiving. Mr. Rooker asked how long the $4 figure had been used; staff replied that it has been used for 3 years or so. Mr. Dorrier noted that policemen are eligible to retire at 55. Mr. Rooker said that all employees have that option. Mr. Tucker stated that many people cannot afford to retire at 55. Mr. Breeden pointed out that constitutional officers and their employees are eligible for the same early retirement from the state, as of this year. Ms. Thomas asked if the county is paying the $4 supplement. Mr. Tucker responded that the county does pay that to teachers. Mr. Rooker commented that it is a state benefit paid for by the localities. Board members agreed to put the $200,000 on the short list for further consideration, to bring equity among other employees to what teachers are receiving. __________ Mr. Foley reported that there is already funding in the budget for stormwater management – some to meet existing needs, and some to meet new mandates. He emphasized that over the next five years, there will be a total increase of $400,000 in this program, with capital needs growing $650,000 over the same time period. Mr. Foley noted that the increases are tied to the expansion of the stormwater management program, which the Board supported during earlier work sessions. He added that this year’s budget focuses just on new mandated programs. Mr. Boyd asked for a brief synopsis of what new mandates would be anticipated in the coming year. Mr. Foley replied that there are new facilities and required inspections, as well as public outreach and education as part of the new mandates. He confirmed that there would be additional personnel required, which is covered in the current allocation. Mr. Bowerman noted that there are additional requirements that the county can place on top of existing mandates. Mr. Wyant said that developers can contribute to this also. Mr. Foley noted that regional facilities make a lot more sense. Mr. Rooker said that the county ends up owning these facilities and assuming maintenance responsibilities, and the consensus of the Board at prior work sessions has been to deal with stormwater at a level that is somewhat higher than the minimum standard requirements. Mr. Bowerman noted that there is a mandated $1 million increase over five years. Ms. Thomas said that some of this could count as mitigation toward the long-range water supply plan, and could be paid for by water rate-payers instead of real estate tax. She noted that Mr. Graham agreed it could be dealt with in this way. Mr. Foley reported that the Public Works operation was pulled out of the Community Development department, as it did not really fit there, and became the General Services division instead. He explained that an existing staff person was assigned to oversee the division, which includes building maintenance, capital projects group, and public works operation. Mr. Foley said that staff services such as copying, vehicle fleet management, and mail delivery are also in this department. March 21, 2005 (Adjourned Meeting from March 16, 2005) (Page 3) Mr. Foley noted that the stormwater program will move away from the Community Development department and planning phase to field inspections, which falls within General Services. He mentioned that the county is closely monitoring waste disposal management and compliance, which also is folded into General Services. Mr. Foley noted that there are many capital projects related to urban infrastructure that have moved beyond the planning phase into more of a maintenance phase. He stated that the need within General Services requires a different type of oversight than the CIP project manager provides, and presented a new proposed structure. Mr. Foley said that building and maintenance, capital projects, and staff services would remain in General Services (County Facilities), emphasizing that the stormwater program would now be located in Public Works, which would retain responsibility for public infrastructure and maintenance. He noted that there would be one new director, and other staff numbers would remain the same. Ms. Thomas asked about the additional custodial employee listed. Mr. Foley said that additional th county office building square footage has generated the need for that, primarily because of COB-5. Mr. Wyant asked how the stormwater field work would be coordinated with the planning department. Mr. Foley responded that he and Mr. Graham have spoken extensively about the need for coordination, and there will be close contact between the Community Development and General Services departments. They will be setting up some mechanisms internally. He noted that the county is “cutting edge” with land use and planning, but there is not adequate staff for the implementation of those initiatives. The question is whether the county has the resources to carry those projects out in a timely manner, and that is what General Services is all about. Mr. Wyant commented that he has experienced situations where plans did not translate well in the field, emphasizing that that feedback needs to come back to a common point. Mr. Foley responded that he will be overseeing both Community Development and General Services, and is aware of the need for strong coordination. Mr. Rooker asked if the county had considered outsourcing custodial work. Mr. Foley replied that they currently do outsource a good bit of it, but it is difficult to have flexibility to obtain custodial staff on short notice if they are needed. Ms. Thomas said that she would like to keep the $94,000 director position on the list so that the county can perform in the way they expect the private sector to on capital projects. th Mr. Foley mentioned that about 100,000 square feet was added when COB-5 Street was added, and the additional custodian costing $30,000 would help meet the recommended custodial staff per square footage ratio. th Mr. Rooker asked if this was the best plan for COB-5. Mr. Tucker responded that staff believes it is, and is recommending the additional $30,000 to cover the new square footage. He noted that next year th will be the first full COB-5 year. Mr. Rooker said that he feels that it is a reasonable addition to the budget. Mr. Tucker noted that the county is trying to use contracted services after hours, with county paid custodial staff during the day. Staff noted that the total custodial budget last year was $380,000, and the increase represents less than 9 percent. Mr. Foley said that the increase would allow custodial staff to cover 25,000 square feet as industry standards recommend. __________ Mr. Foley continued with his presentation, revisiting the CTS operating request. He stated that the baseline request is for $470,000 versus the current $241,000 for the same level of service, representing a 94 percent increase. Mr. Foley said that that is being driven by the establishment of a new formula that the city is proposing that uses direct costs on a per-hour basis, eliminates consideration of state and federal revenue, and gives no consideration to the location of the county-city routes. He presented an example of the county/city “borders,” and how much the county pays for routes that run through the city. Mr. Foley stated that CTS is asking for full funding of one route because the county asked for it, even though it runs primarily through the city. Mr. Rooker said that he recommends a 10 percent increase, expressing concern of being in a position similar to fire & rescue, where the county needs the service but has no control over the cost of that service. It is an uncomfortable position to be in. He does not think the county should put itself in that position, if it can avoid it. If the city can show us what their overall costs are increasing by on a per-route basis, the county is certainly willing to share in that increased cost. He added that the county should also consider looking at alternate forms of transportation for the neediest people in the community, such as th service to COB-5. Mr. Rooker said that the county could also provide vouchers for cab fare out to COB also, and guessed that it would probably cost less than operating a bus route there. March 21, 2005 (Adjourned Meeting from March 16, 2005) (Page 4) Mr. Dorrier commented that there should be some accounting of how many riders are from the county, adding that they should not break away from CTS. Mr. Bowerman said that the county couldn’t really take over the service as a viable option. He noted that the manager of the city gas department has asked him to meet with them regarding gas lines. They could also meet with the city about the CTS service in the same vein. Mr. Rooker stated that he recommends budgeting a 10 percent increase in transit expense, and th have staff go back to the city with that figure. He reiterated the concept of a voucher system for COB-5 transit. Mr. Tucker said that the county has funded the baseline request. Mr. Dorrier commented that the county should be able to have a say in the funding formula for CTS. Mr. Bowerman noted that none of the federal and state allocations are credited to the county. Ms. Thomas said that she asked the Virginia Transit Association to look into that situation, and they learned from the Director of Rails and Transportation that the city could, but their allocations from state and federal sources are based on the number of miles served. She noted that their revenue would be impacted by reducing routes, adding that she agrees with Mr. Rooker. The county should not be in a position where the provider of a service can “hang us out to dry”. Mr. Rooker noted that most of the transit is paid for with state or federal funds, and they get grant credit for having a regional transit system. Mr. Dorrier asked if CTS would run by Whitewood Village. Staff said that there is a bus that goes by there now. Mr. Boyd stated that he agrees with the 10 percent recommended increase and the voucher system, as long as the vouchers will go to county residents, not city residents. Ms. Thomas mentioned that she has tried to find out from social services where the needs are for public transportation. Ms. White said that social services did some research on this, and 20 percent of clients have indicated that they need some transportation. She said that there has been a short window of time in which the survey has been conducted, so there is not a definitive picture emerging yet of the real need. Mr. Rooker commented that the county could offer vouchers on JAUNT for people coming to COB- th 5, and vouchers for taxis from the downtown transit center. He emphasized that that is going to be a whole lot more cost effective than trying to add a new CTS route. Mr. Foley suggested that the county meet with the city with the Board’s recommendation, and agreed to explore the voucher concept. th Mr. Rooker clarified that his voucher idea is primarily for COB-5. __________ Ms. Thomas asked about E-911 funding. Mr. Breeden explained that current E-911 funds “barely support” the county’s share of the 911 center operations. Those funds can also be used for other public safety measures, such as fire costs. He mentioned legislation that had been introduced to restructure the E-911system, but to his knowledge, it has not gone through. Mr. Davis said that it is going to be reintroduced next year, and would take away the local ability to tax E-911 lines and set that fee as part of the overall general tax. Mr. Breeden pointed out that the cellular tax was swiped back by the state, after it had initially been promised to localities. __________ Ms. White reported on the Family Support program, noting that it is the biggest arm of the county’s prevention program. She explained that it provides family workers in the elementary schools and Walton Middle School, noting that staff had previously presented figures on the positive outcome from the program. Ms. White noted that the CSA costs have leveled for several years consecutively, and she hopes that the Family Support program has had an impact on that. She presented a budget for the total program of $800,000 for FY-06, with federal revenues of $479,000 (different from 4E reimbursements), and local government already providing $11,000. Ms. White said that the school budget is contributing $125,000, bringing the total in-hand to $615,000. Ms. White said that the Family Support program has changed structurally so that those workers get March 21, 2005 (Adjourned Meeting from March 16, 2005) (Page 5) one month off in the summer. She added that both Walton and Burley middle schools will have support workers next year under the proposed scenario. She clarified that the total additional request from the county is $154,795, and a shortfall would mean lying off one worker. Mr. Boyd asked if it is possible that there is some overlap with family services offered in the public and private sectors. Ms. White responded that there is the Bright Stars program for ages 0-6, and the Family Support program picks up where that leaves off. In response to Mr. Boyd’s question, she confirmed that the Family Support program deals with both academic and family issues, as they are often related. Mr. Rooker asked what the total funding was last year. Ms. White replied that they had over $1 million funded last year, noting that the Family Support monies also fund 60 percent of Bright Stars workers. She emphasized that Kathy Ralston and others are always seeking other funds. Ms. Thomas mentioned that Saphira Baker has indicated the Family Support program and Bright Stars, as evaluated with other programs by committee, are among the best offered. Ms. White said that there are a lot of crisis programs for children, but this is one of the few preventative programs that actually stem the need for crisis intervention. Mr. Rooker noted that the federal government is cutting back $400,000 to this program, leaving it up to localities to fund. He suggested the Boys & Girls Club as a possible option for helping to reduce the Family Support program budget. Mr. Dorrier commented that the Boys & Girls Club provides mentoring. Ms. White said that the Boys & Girls Club would be recommended by support workers, but might not replace the services that a professional family worker could provide. __________ Mr. Tucker continued with staff’s presentation, showing comparative data on per capita expenditures by localities. He noted that out of eight functional areas, Albemarle ranks above the top 20 counties (by population) in three areas. Mr. Tucker explained that in administration, the county is below; in judicial, the county is higher. He said that the reason for this may be that other localities may have all of their sheriff’s department expenses shown in public safety. Ms. Thomas noted that even if public safety and judicial were combined, Albemarle would still rank below other localities in expenditures for those services. Mr. Tucker emphasized that the county ranks well below in Public Works. He said that Albemarle is slightly above the top 20 in Health and Welfare spending, but is below the top 20 in Education spending. Mr. Tucker noted that Parks & Recreation spending is below the top 20, and Community Development spending is higher. Mr. Rooker suggested adding the numbers up to get a clear picture, as there are reasons why each locality might spend more or less on certain things. __________ Mr. Tucker presented information on Full Time Equivalent employees, noting that there have been across the board steady increases since 1996-97, except for public safety which has seen a more marked increase. He presented information on new revenues, noting that one year there was a decrease in property tax income over expected return. Mr. Tucker emphasized that the county has done a good job keeping increases in FTE’s stable, again noting public safety increases due to paid fire and rescue personnel. He mentioned that fire & rescue equipment and apparatus needs are also covered now, and debts have been abdicated. Mr. Tucker reminded the Board that local fundraising undertaken for individual fire stations would now be used for building improvements at those sites. Mr. Bowerman commented that the fire & rescue arrangement is “a true hybrid system” of paid and volunteer workers and shared funding responsibilities. Mr. Tucker stated that the revenue transfers for schools and CIP are increased by the rate of growth in revenue, plus one penny added to the CIP reserve each year. He mentioned that the fire contract with the City of Charlottesville would be ending soon, and county staff is starting to work on how service would be provided if that contract is not renewed. Mr. Tucker emphasized that even with the city contract renewal, response times cannot be met without building new stations in the urban areas of the county. Mr. Tucker said that the Board has directed staff to provide additional sidewalks and necessary infrastructure in growth areas and development areas to meet the neighborhood model initiatives. He noted that from FY-01 to FY-05, county staff has added about $9.1 million for operational and capital needs related to transportation, and that figure doubles from FY-06 to FY-10 to $17 million in order to meet the Board’s adopted policies. Mr. Tucker continued with budget figures related to the Board’s goal to have 1.5 police officers per 1,000 population; currently that figure is 1.25, and additional officers are proposed for the coming year, although that still won’t bring the county to 1.5. Ms. Thomas noted that there are no revenues realized any more from tipping fees related to waste disposal, causing an $850,000 increase in costs. Mr. Tucker agreed that it needs to be recognized as a March 21, 2005 (Adjourned Meeting from March 16, 2005) (Page 6) cost in the budget. __________ Mr. Tucker continued with the budget presentation, noting that a two-cent tax reduction would reduce revenue by $2.4 million or 1 percent. Mr. Breeden reported that the projected revenue surplus for this year is $3.4 million; the proposed budget assumes funding of $681,000 in one-time items from that surplus. He noted that a two-cent tax reduction would drop the surplus to $970,000, and reducing it four cents would eliminate the surplus and leave a $211,000 shortfall. He confirmed that the figures are based on 2005 appraisals, noting that there is approximately $1.184 million generated per penny. Mr. Rooker noted that both gubernatorial candidates have discussed “fixing” the issue of local property taxes, much as they had done with the car tax. He mentioned the possibility of capping property taxes, which would “lock in” counties with low tax rates. Mr. Breeden reported that $2.4 million has been set aside with the current 76-cent tax rate, and a two-cent reduction would make that one-half million. Further reductions would cause a shortfall in funding to the current proposed budget, and would also reduce school and CIP allocations. Mr. Boyd asked what the increase in spending would be even if the rate were dropped to 73 cents. Mr. Breeden responded that going to 73 cents would drop the revenue by $1.1 million. Mr. Foley mentioned that funding of additional police officers, fire & rescue funding, and libraries represent large new expenses. Board members discussed the possibility of home appraisals leveling off, as they have historically, and the impact this would have on county revenue. Mr. Rooker suggested looking at the possibility of a portion of home value not being taxed, as a flat rate cut is a “broad swath” approach. Mr. Davis stated that there is legislation proposed to include this type of homestead provision, noting that it would require a state constitutional amendment. Ms. Thomas suggested considering low income as a way of exempting some property owners from paying such high taxes. At 3:30 p.m., the Board took a brief recess, and reconvened at 3:40 p.m.) Mr. Tucker and Ms. Vinzant reported that for budgeting purposes, staff took the Board’s $300,000 remaining reserve, added it to the $2.9 million for a total of $3.2 million. Ms. Vinzant explained that if tax rates were reduced by two cents, the surplus would be $834,000 in recurring funds. She added that if the Board funded the “list” of items totaling $501,000 and saved $204,000 on CTS, there would be a $333,000 balance left with the implementation a two-cent reduction. She added that this does not consider sharing with the schools or the impact on capital expenditures. Mr. Breeden pointed out that the $681,000 figure used represents one-time expenditures planned for the projected 2006 budget to be funded from the surplus. He noted that this is operations funding, not capital projects. Mr. Boyd asked how much was being moved to the CIP this year. Mr. Breeden replied that between CIP at $7 million and debt service at $13 million, that figure totals over $20 million. He noted that money comes in and out of the CIP, as borrowed funds are put in and taken out. Ms. Thomas noted that 4 percent of funds are borrowed funds, and that figure is kept deliberately low to avoid interest expenses. Mr. Rooker commented that money can always be pulled out of the CIP, but that approach is somewhat “short-sighted.” Mr. Bowerman said if one penny is $1.2 million and we have a $900,000 surplus, you take one penny out, how does that turn into recurring funds. Mr. Tucker replied that you are combining recurring and non-recurring. Mr. Breeden stated that all of the past comparisons that you’ve seen are in relationship to using that $2.9 million reassessment reserve. At this point it also takes into consideration your $300,000 Board reserve, and also reflects the $200,000 decrease in CTS that was currently funded in the budget. Mr. Boyd asked what the CIP contribution policy is. Mr. Tucker responded that CIP contributions are a percentage in the growth of revenues and a one-penny transfer. Mr. Breeden added that the CIP is comprised of: (1) the base amount – what was transferred last year; (2) one cent on the tax rate; and (3) one-half percent of new real estate assessment revenue for the upcoming year. March 21, 2005 (Adjourned Meeting from March 16, 2005) (Page 7) Mr. Tucker commented that the Board could revisit all of the items on their list. This proposed budget funds all of those items on the list. The Board may have disagreement on whether or not they want to fund all of those things. He added that the CIP reserve fund could also be reduced. Mr. Rooker said that it is unwise to reduce the CIP transfer to fund the current budget, especially for recurring items that would have to be continuously funded. Mr. Breeden pointed out that tax rate reductions do not have significant impacts on the CIP formula as to what is transferred over. Dr. Kevin Castner commented that the 60/40 split has essentially changed because of the large assessments. He explained that the 76 to 74 reduction was used as a planning tool, and reducing it further would be a “challenge” to the school budget. Mr. Tucker stated that what the Board is discussing would not impact the schools or local government in recurring funds, it would impact the CIP. Dr. Castner responded that the issues of concern with the CIP relate to increased construction costs, which actually make that money worth less. Mr. Rooker noted that the school has already contemplated what the impact of more than two cents in tax reduction would have. Mr. Breeden emphasized that the $2.9 million from the reserve has already been “pulled out” of the $255 million budget. He mentioned that the real increase in county operations is 9.6 percent, and there would be no reduction in what is transferred to the schools. Mr. Tucker said that in order to reduce the rate two cents, $2.4 million of the $2.9 would be used up, leaving one-half million. He added that the schools were hoping that remainder would in turn be split, leaving them short $1.2 million in their budget without any additional funds. Mr. Rooker pointed out that the transfer to schools is increasing by eight percent. Mr. Dorrier commented that he believes the Board can fund the schools and the local government budget and still allow a two-cent tax reduction. Mr. Rooker said that he agrees with Mr. Dorrier, but is concerned about legislative caps on the tax rate. He added that a tax rate reduction still leaves a “reasonable” reserve. Mr. Tucker confirmed that the recurring reserves would be $333,000. Ms. Thomas said that it does give room to consider tax relief for the elderly and handicapped. Mr. Bowerman said that he would like to look at the E-911 tax. Mr. Tucker agreed that staff could run that, noting that there is a more lengthy process of public hearings, etc. that would be required in order to enact that. Ms. Thomas mentioned that VACo believes that a cap on property tax rates is very likely within the next year. Mr. Rooker commented that if expenses are cut, the reserve should be increased at this point, because $333,000 on a $200 million budget is a margin of error reserve. Ms. Thomas said that if the Board feels there is a “lot of fluff and waste in this budget,” then “we and our administration are not doing the job that we ought to do.” She added that they have made some very expensive policy decisions this year, such as picking up volunteer fire costs. We should either find things that we need to change if we do not like the bottom line, or it does lead you to changing your administration. Mr. Boyd emphasized that he would simply like to see tax relief for people who are footing the bill for county government. He said that it is up to county staff to provide a budget that reflects the tax rate reduction as stipulated by the Board. Ms. Thomas responded that the Board sets the policies, and has the ability to rescind them. Mr. Boyd said that he does not see reducing the rate of increase from 9.6 percent to 8 percent to be a drastic cut in the budget. Mr. Wyant stated that the Board can set policies at this level, but staff knows in much more detail what items can be cut, and where cost savings can occur. Mr. Bowerman noted that carryover is reflected in what can be spent in the following year, but some things involve variables – such as fuel costs – that cannot always be accurately predicted. He commented that just a one percent carryover indicates we’re doing a good job, not that we’re over-appropriating. Mr. Tucker said that his department heads spend just what they need, and do not spend money March 21, 2005 (Adjourned Meeting from March 16, 2005) (Page 8) just to use it up. We don’t operate that way. Mr. Rooker commented that what needs to be considered is what package of services are delivered to the taxpayer at what cost, and whether those services are delivered efficiently. He stated that the comparison numbers show Albemarle to be below average in expenditures, while the schools are performing in the top 10 percent and the community is voted best in the country to live in. Mr. Tucker added that at the same time, we’re the smallest county in the country that has a AAA bond rating. Mr. Rooker said that the county responsibly budgets and has left room in the tax rate if needed. He does not think a $333,000 reserve is as high as it should be. One percent of the budget would be more like a $2 million reserve. He would not budget in a private business with the idea he was going to hit it within .15 percent on the revenue side. He would like to see a bigger recurring revenue reserve there than what is showing now. He added that dropping the rate to 74 cents is really 64 cents, and only southwest Virginia communities operate at that low of a level – and most of those receive significant state funding. Board members briefly discussed the economics of southwest Virginia as it relates to assessments and tax rates. Mr. Rooker commented that just paying teachers an appropriate rate added four cents to the tax rate, and paying for fire and rescue also added expense. When you start talking about increases in the budget, those are the places that cause an increase beyond an inflationary plus population increase. He added that the Board would need to decide from a policy standpoint what should not be funded, if they want the tax rate reduced. Mr. Dorrier said that six years ago, the tax rate was 72 cents, and now it is 76 cents. He thinks we are increasing the services we’re allowing and we’re pushing the tax rate back. It is true assessments went up 27 percent. He believes administration is tightening up on the numbers. He added that the only “fluff” he sees in the budget is the park that might not be needed next year, and police, stormwater management, etc., are needed and should not be cut. Mr. Bowerman said that there is an argument to keep the rate where it is in anticipation of state- mandated caps. Mr. Boyd stated that the reserves do need to be increased. Mr. Tucker mentioned that the $333,000 would go to the Board reserve, and for several years that figure has been $0. Mr. Boyd said that he felt $13 million is high to keep in cashflow balance. Mr. Breeden replied that there are several months of operation before money comes in from property tax, and that is what the cash balance is needed for, as well as for emergency funds. Ms. White noted that the policy the Board adopted four years ago says that “at the close of a year, the fund balance should be no less than eight percent of total revenues.” Mr. Rooker commented that it might be helpful to have a one-page summary of key policy decisions like that. Mr. Tucker pointed out that the $14 million referred to in the CIP is over five years. They tend to use $1 to $2 million each year on capital items. Mr. Boyd asked about the $3.6 million CIP carryover, and asked how much of that is due to the increase in tax rates as opposed to leftover budget money. Mr. Breeden replied that that is totally surplus revenues from reassessment. Ms. Thomas asked how Albemarle compares to other communities as far as how much real estate assessment revenue comes from commercial properties versus residential. Mr. Foley said that staff could follow up on that and find out. He added that localities often try to get more from those commercial properties to alleviate the burden on residential. Mr. Rooker said that he has seen that information at a fiscal impact committee meeting, and Board members should take a look at that data. Mr. Breeden mentioned that the retiree health insurance and tax relief are not reflected in the budget that includes the hypothetical tax cut. Mr. Wyant stated that it might take a while to generate commercial revenue, as it takes a while to get businesses established in the county. Mr. Rooker noted that there is two million square feet of commercial space approved but not yet built, and another 1.5 million square feet in the pipeline. He said that there will be more people driving to March 21, 2005 (Adjourned Meeting from March 16, 2005) (Page 9) Charlottesville from Staunton than vice versa. Ms. Thomas noted that Crozet would offer business and retail options for people that do not want to drive all the way into Charlottesville. Mr. Foley pointed out that changes in the funding for Stony Point fire would be phased in over a few years. Mr. Rooker asked that the policies be reviewed to see if the full funding of $369,000 for the building would be required. Mr. Bowerman said that fire stations won’t share with the county what they raise. Mr. Boyd commented that he would like to help them with renovations, but wants to see an equitable way of accomplishing that. Mr. Rooker said next year, the Board may be looking at $1.5 million in these kinds of requests. Mr. Foley responded that no other stations asked for money for their buildings this year. Mr. Rooker commented that Earlysville paid for their entire addition. Ms. Thomas noted that tax relief for the elderly has increased less than $150,000 this year. Mr. Breeden reminded Board members that they had added an equal amount in the current year’s budget to handle the first half of 2005, and the $150,000 would be over and above that. He noted that it is hard to gauge how many people would qualify, etc. Board members agreed to take the $359,000 for Stony Point at this time in the discussion and hold that aside. Mr. Tucker continued with his report, noting that the Sheriff’s deputy is a new item, along with a new clerical person to free one deputy up. Mr. Bowerman said the caseloads of the courts are getting to the point where he thinks the county needs these deputies the Sheriff is asking for. Especially with this transition, it’s going to be more difficult for court security. Ms. Thomas replied that this would be a side effect of the renovations in the court buildings. Mr. Tucker said that this would be an interim thing until the courts are completed. Mr. Boyd stated that he hoped the new buildings were more efficient, and the Sheriff’s items should be considered temporary. Mr. Rooker said that the Sheriff’s office has five more people than the state recommends for an operation that size. He gets no additional funds for his department at all from the state. Mr. Bowerman commented that that situation is typical of many growing counties. Mr. Rooker noted that the Sheriff’s request was “way down on the list” of staff-recommended priorities. Mr. Tucker pointed out that the Sheriff does all of the juvenile court transportation for city and county, and the state’s formula does not take that into consideration. He added that the state does provide funding for some of the deputies. Mr. Dorrier commented that when court is in session, it is packed. It is a security risk. Mr. Rooker said that the Board is faced with making choices, and the Sheriff’s department request is one example. He would like to have something back from staff on this item. He added that he would like to see the priority list also. Mr. Bowerman commented that the Sheriff is serious about providing court security. Mr. Tucker suggested putting that funding in the reserve until the Board decides. Mr. Boyd stated that the Sheriff’s department is one of the only certified offices in the state, and he does not have a problem with the standard being high. Mr. Rooker said that he wants more information about need before deciding. The Board is not under the gun to fund this today. Mr. Tucker and Mr. Breeden agreed to put that funding in contingency while the Board deliberates. Mr. Bowerman asked if the plan for retiree health insurance was to end it at age 65 when Medicare would kick in. Mr. Tucker replied that the Board could specify how it works, noting that a plan comparable to the state and teachers’ supplements would not end at age 65. Mr. Jackson Zimmerman pointed out that the teachers’ program was originally done by the state, and localities did not have the option of participating. He added that three years ago, the state passed on March 21, 2005 (Adjourned Meeting from March 16, 2005) (Page 10) 100 percent of the teacher retiree costs to the localities. Mr. Breeden said that the $200,000 held aside for this attempts to cover general government, non- teaching school staff, and existing retirees. It’s definitely a rough guesstimate at this point. Mr. Zimmerman mentioned that the county’s cost for teacher retirees has grown, adding that the state probably “jumped out of it when they realized their costs would be growing.” Mr. Rooker suggested putting a placeholder in the budget and keeping that $200,000 in contingency for further discussion as the work sessions continue. Regarding tax relief for the elderly, Ms. Thomas said that she would like to continue looking into ways to provide assistance for people who need it. Mr. Bowerman commented that it does not help the general poor, though. Mr. Wyant pointed out that 50 or 60 percent of people who have spoken with him about high tax concerns would be eligible, but did not know the program existing. Ms. Thomas said that she did a PSA on the radio about it. Mr. Breeden stated that information on the relief program is mailed in the tax bills each year. Mr. Rooker suggested increasing that fund by $150,000. Mr. Breeden noted that the program is currently funded at $300,000 annually. Mr. Bowerman said that the fund should be increased to the state maximum. Mr. Rooker responded that that would be a lot of money. Ms. Thomas said that she thinks that’s where they should go with it, and perhaps $300,000 additional should be put there. Mr. Davis mentioned that the state limits income to $50,000, with $200,000 in net worth for qualifying participants. Mr. Breeden said that the county currently limits that income to $30,000 or below, with $90,000 in net worth. Mr. Rooker asked Mr. Foley to elaborate on the rescue squad funding request. Mr. Dorrier replied that training requirements for rescue squad are so high, volunteer personnel are harder to come by. He said that Scottsville is located 20 miles from Charlottesville and the nearest hospital, and there should be a premium put on that station’s service capability. Mr. Mike Johnson said that the new request would provide five additional personnel, with two people on every shift around the clock. Mr. Bowerman commented that having qualified ALS people on staff is important, given the remote location of Scottsville. Ms. Thomas expressed concern that many of their calls are from other localities. Mr. Johnson pointed out that one alternative discussed was putting some of that staff at Monticello and having them respond from there, which would be three people instead of five, to keep resources in the urban area to respond into the rural area, where the standard is 13 minutes instead of five. Mr. Johnson pointed out that Fluvanna provides $13,000 for fire and rescue, but Buckingham does not contribute. Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Foley if he had had discussions with the county administrator. Mr. Dorrier said that he and Mr. Foley did meet with him, and were told to address the local advisory committee that oversees fire and rescue there. Mr. Johnson stated that they get a nominal increase each year. Mr. Rooker asked how the coverage in Scottsville compares with the coverage in other rural areas. Mr. Foley replied that the county is currently providing a higher level of service in Scottsville than in other rural areas, noting that in Scottsville the additional funding is for rescue whereas in other localities that is for first response fire personnel running rescue calls. Mr. Rooker commented that he wants to make sure there is good coverage, and that may mean that resources need to be combined. Mr. Johnson said that resources have been combined since 1974; however, fire personnel have not had an interest in being involved in advanced life support services and feel that rescue squad personnel are better suited for that. He noted that over the past five years or so, state mandates have required that fire personnel become better trained in life support. Mr. Johnson stated that the staffing component for basic life support exists, but needs to be enhanced to advanced life support. He said that the basic life support is basic care, but does not cover advanced procedures. March 21, 2005 (Adjourned Meeting from March 16, 2005) (Page 11) Mr. Foley commented that staff contemplated putting personnel in a more central location rather than in the bottom corner. He noted that in Chesterfield, they decided not to run into other counties. Mr. Rooker said that Albemarle should consider the same if the other counties are not willing to provide any support. Mr. Dorrier pointed out that Scottsville does have more elderly people, and ALS becomes more critical for those individuals. He asked what percentage of calls are critical. Mr. Johnson said that 51 percent of calls are considered advanced life support calls. Mr. Rooker stated that the Board needs to make a policy decision about where and how rescue services are provided. He commented that there does not seem to be agreement about how coverage should be provided. Mr. Bowerman asked about the coverage at Monticello fire station, and Stony Point. Mr. Foley said that they are only staffed from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m., and the response time from Monticello to Scottsville would largely be within 13 minutes, but not the entire portion. Mr. Rooker stated that he feels it is a mistake to start funding things on an ad-hoc basis that are not generally recommended by the department. He emphasized that the Board should try to balance the rural area coverage. Mr. Rooker said that Mr. Eggleston, Mr. Johnson and staff should work together to come up with an overall strategy, rather than an “ad-hoc request to add five people.” Mr. Tucker said that alternatives were provided to the Board earlier, and staff can bring them back. Mr. Rooker asked if adding three personnel at Monticello would enable 24/7 coverage in that part of the rural area. Mr. Foley responded that the best location would be in the middle of the rural area to lower the average response time to 13 minutes. Board members suggested using a figure of $186,000, to provide three people instead of five. Mr. Dan Eggleston said that data shows that ALS coverage can be provided from Monticello, although Mr. Johnson and his staff do not agree. Mr. Eggleston confirmed that the three additional personnel would be able to meet response times. The data shows that if they are simultaneously dispatched, they could be down there by the time they are ready to go to the hospital and provide that service in route to the hospital. Mr. Foley said that BLS would start the care, and ALS would arrive on the scene. Mr. Bowerman emphasized that it is important to maintain good relations with volunteers, and in this case it seems staff disagrees with the way coverage would be provided. Mr. Dorrier said that the fire station is serving a regional area that includes Buckingham and Fluvanna, and funding is needed from those localities. Mr. Wyant said that if ALS people can be on the scene quickly, that would be acceptable. Mr. Foley stated that the real issue for the Board is that this would set a precedent on the level of coverage in the rural area. __________ Mr. Tucker said that the ACE funding would be covered by one-time revenues as in the past. Ms. Thomas mentioned that the Rural Areas Comp Plan wants more permanence for the program, but as long as the funding is there each year, that is acceptable. She added that there may be state funding for ACE to be added also. __________ Regarding the public defender’s office, Mr. Rooker suggested phasing in funding for that, and wants to make sure the city pays their share. He recommended putting $35,000 in contingency for potential supplementation for the public defender’s office based upon funding being able to be worked out with the city, and with an understanding of how that supplement would be assigned. Mr. Boyd asked what message would be sent with that. Mr. Rooker replied that the county would be sending a message to the city that the public defender is not paid fairly and the county is willing to participate in some way to rectify that situation. The details would need to be worked out. Mr. Boyd said he wanted to leave the figure at $69,000. Mr. Rooker pointed out that with other departments, increases have been phased in. Mr. Bowerman said that the county could make it contingent on what the city does. He said he’d March 21, 2005 (Adjourned Meeting from March 16, 2005) (Page 12) like to put in the full $69,000, with the understanding that the city would provide their share. Mr. Breeden asked which items should be shown as contingencies, and which should just be held in a generic reserve. Ms. White noted that often, those items are put into the Board’s contingency fund. Mr. Tucker asked about the Director of General Services position. Mr. Wyant commented that he is concerned about adding another position in the bureaucracy, and how that is managed. Mr. Bowerman said that Mr. Foley has been responsible for overseeing everything, and having someone else handling them makes more sense, such as bringing Dan Eggleston in for fire, and Mark Graham in for engineering. It’s got to be well managed from a strategic point of view, somebody that knows what they’re doing. Mr. Tucker responded that his staff does not have time. Mr. Bowerman commented that he and Mr. Foley used to do all of the “fire stuff.” Mr. Wyant said that it is important who is answering to who. Is this going to create another layer of bureaucracy? Mr. Bowerman replied that he felt that several public works type projects have been mismanaged because there is no one spending time on them, and a new person overseeing them strategically would help “get problems solved.” Mr. Dorrier said that it is important that the right charge be given to this new person, to enable them to make decisions. Mr. Bowerman stated that it takes more than a few months to work out new programs, such as the Community Development department reorganization. Mr. Wyant said he does not know how Mr. Graham can keep up with the internal and external management demands that he faces in his position. Mr. Foley pointed out that a new person would assume some of those responsibilities. Mr. Rooker commented that Mr. Graham is spread too thin right now. He added that there will be a lot of additional demands related to stormwater. As the Board reviewed the content of their work session, Mr. Boyd stated that he is convinced that the Family Support Program is essential, although he would still like to look at nonprofit organizations that might provide similar services. Mr. Rooker agreed that the county needs to find the best and most efficient way to provide these services, and agreed that the request for Family Support be fully funded as presented. Ms. Thomas asked about the CTS funding, in the event the county would provide vouchers. Mr. Foley responded that if the Route 5 trip were reduced to a shorter trip (1 hour) that would free up $65,000. Mr. Tucker said that he would like to do it under non-recurring monies next year. Mr. Boyd responded that the county needs to be up-front with the city on how they feel about the CTS request and overall funding pattern. Mr. Breeden said that CTS is definitely an issue. He asked about the Board’s decision on the E-911 tax. Ms. Thomas asked if cell phones had the E-911 function. Mr. Breeden said that some of them do. Mr. Bowerman commented that those phones are just now coming into use. Mr. Breeden mentioned that there would be expenses next year related to new E-911 equipment. Mr. Tucker said that a resolution of intent for a new ordinance would be brought before the Board, and new information on costs could be provided when that is presented. Mr. Breeden stated that some of that reserve would be going to the schools if the typical funding formula was followed. Ms. Diantha McKeel said that if the process is being changed, there should be further discussion with the School Board. The School Board may want to meet on Wednesday, because that’s a change in policy. Mr. Breeden said that that figure would end up being 60 percent of $300,000, once the $200,000 for tax relief is taken off the total. March 21, 2005 (Adjourned Meeting from March 16, 2005) (Page 13) _______________ March 21, 2005 (Adjourned Meeting from March 16, 2005) (Page 14) Agenda Item No. 2. From the Board: Matters not Listed on the Agenda. Mr. Boyd mentioned that he has been reading in the paper about the Meadow Creek Parkway and the city’s position. He expressed concern over what he had read, and wondered if the Board should take an “official position.” Mr. Boyd said that the article indicated the city would not move forward unless the grade- separated interchange is part of the plan, and other road plans would need to be agreed to by the county. Mr. Boyd said that it bothers him that the project would be held hostage. Mr. Rooker said that the county has supported this for 20+ years, and began funding it in 1985. He explained that the city has complete control over the part of the road in the city. Mr. Rooker said that he tried calling the mayor on the article, asking them not to hold the project hostage. He said that the city agreed with the park land plan after a meeting with the county, and VDOT has agreed to acquire that park land as shown on the plans presented. He does not know what the county can do at this point. He said that the mayor did not call him back. Mr. Boyd suggested the Board take a position on the Meadow Creek Parkway. Mr. Rooker said that they do not have all of the money allocated, but would have all funding in 2008. He stated that at that point, the county can decide whether to move forward with the road, and the city may have a more definitive position at that point. From the Board’s perspective, the road has not been contingent in the county on the interchange. Mr. Boyd said that the Board should make their position public. Mr. Rooker suggested seeing what the city does tonight at their meeting. _______________ Agenda Item No. 3. Adjourn. At 5:30 p.m., motion was made by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, to adjourn to March 23, 2005, 2:00 p.m. 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: 07/06/2005 Initials: DBM