Loading...
1999-03-17 adjMarch 17, 1999 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 1) An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on March 17, 1999, at 1:00 p.m., Room 235, County Office Building, Mclntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. The meeting was adjourned from March 15, 1999. PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Ms. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Forrest R Marshall, Jr., Mr. Charles S. Martin (arrived at 1:10 p.m.), Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Ms. Sally H. Thomas. ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Deputy County Executive, Richard E: Huff, II, Assistant County Executive, Roxanne W. White, and County Attorney, Larry W. Davis. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 1:03 P.m., by the Vice-Chairman, Ms. Thomas. Agenda Item No. 2. Work Session: FY 1999-2000 County Operating Budget Continuation of General Government Critical Issues Ms. Thomas noted that she would like to discuss a couple of things about items covered in last week's budget work session. Mr. Tucker suggested that the Board members discuss the items to which Ms. Thomas referred at this time. Ms. Thomas called attention to Page 74 of the budget document relating to the Board of Supervisors' budget. Last year one of the issues involved software to help with transcribing minutes, but a decision was not made at that time. Mr. Bowerman stated that he talked to Fred Kruger about this matter, and the process would be too slow and would not work very well. The Clerks are much faster with their entry and much more accurate. The public's comments would also have to be considered. With patience the system will work, but it would be impossible to provide the proper training for every person who speaks before this Board. Ms. Thomas next mentioned the Finance category on Page 88. A constituent of hers asked why there are so many mailings going to the same household. She noted that the Finance Department is asking for additional postage, which the County Executive's budget does not cover. She asked if there is any way to save on the number of mailings going to each household. Mr. Tucker explained that usually when parcels of land are involved, mailings are sent to one person. However, it becomes difficult when someone owns a car with someone else, and the car is in another name. This is hard to determine, even though it is the same household. He noted that the staff has tried to take care of this problem before, but did not find a solution. Mr. Huff said it was determined that the labor costs of combining the mailings far exceeded the postage. Mr. Tucker commented that although the system looks inefficient, it is the only way to handle the mailings. Otherwise, it would have to be done by hand. Mr. Marshall noted that it is faster to let the machine handle the mailings, than to have someone sorting the envelopes. He has the same problem in his business, and sometimes three bills will go to the same household. People ask him why he doesn't send just one envelope. The machine handles his billings, and if he had to pay someone to sort the mailings, it would be more costly than using extra stamps. Ms. Thomas then referred to Page 100 relating to Information Services. She recalled that some of the Information Services' tasks and functions are being given directly to the school system and are shown in the school budget, but there is no reduction in this category for general government. Mr. Huff responded that there are nine or ten employees who are funded by the school division, and all these costs are already in the School Board's budget, and not in the general government's budget. The action the school officials have taken to hire a Director will have all of these employees working for that person, but there will be no reduction in the local government's budget. In the past some of the local government employees were doing school related things, and local government was bearing the costs involved. However, when this function goes to the schools, these employees will then work on general government items that were not getting done. He also noted that general government employees will continue to take care of the wide area network for the schools, and they will be paid out of general government's budget. The school system, itself, will not assume this function at this time. Ms. Thomas stated that it appears because of these changes, there will be more, as well as improved information coming from Information Services for general government. At this time, Mr. Huff discussed the Engineering and Public Works Department's budget. He out that the Public Works Division is 52 percent of the entire function, with the balance being in the Engineering Division, and there is a 5.6 percent base line increase in the function, itself. If the Board members have questions on specific pages of the budget, staff members are probably more prepared today to respond to those questions than they were at the last budget work session. He went on to say 169 site plans were submitted in 1998 which was a 12 percent increase over 1997. Not only are there more site plans, but they are becoming more complex in terms of the required review. Three Erosion Control Plan Reviewers/Inspectors manage 278 projects, and they have responded to 55 complaints and March 17, 1999 (Adjourned Meeting) OOOO~, (Page 2) have 31 site or subdivision projects Pending. Since January, 249 single family sites have been inspected, which is an average of 57 agreements per month. The projection for FY 2000 is that there will be 70 of these new site/subdivision projects, as well as a total of 650 single family dwellings that have to be visited. He added that 7 detention basins are owned by the County out of a Countywide potential of 246 stormwater facilities, and it is anticipated that 13 additional stormwater facilities will be dedicated to the County in the year 2000. There were 218 tons of trash collected during five bulky waste drop-off days in 1998, which is an increase from 189 tons over eight such dates in 1997. The increase of the site review plans has become a critical issue and has necessitated the addition of a Senior Civil Engineer reviewer, which is a professional engineer level position. There is a critical increase in the entire erosion control area resulting from not only an increase in awareness about protecting streams and waterways.from sedimentation by state and local officials, but also because of the change in the state law that requires the County to inspect them after significant rain events. He added that adequate ongoing funding needs to be provided for maintenance of up to 20 stormwater detention basins. The County has been trying to absorb this cost within its operating budget in the past, but it is going to be very difficult to do in the future. The County Executive's recommendation is to fund the Senior Civil Engineer's position to help with the site plan review situation, as well as the Engineering Plans Reviewedlnspector position in the erosion control section. The reason for the high costs in this category is the need for a vehicle for this individual to do inspections, which is a one time cost for the first year. The recommendation also includes $10,000 for the initial funding of the stormwater detention basin maintenance. Mr. Bowerman mentioned that since $17,690 is being spent for part-time clerical help, he thinks it would be smarter to spend the extra $9,400 and hire another clerk which would provide the continuity of someone knowing the job. This would be a relatively small additional cost that could provide benefits to the Engineering Department by the continuity of having just one person involved. This is not recommended in the County Executive's budget, but he believes it would be better to train someone and have one person who knows the job. H'e recommended that this position be included in the list of items to be examined by this Board. Ms. Humphris wondered if the rationale for not recommending the position to which Mr. Bowerman referred at this time involves an intention to look at the position more carefully to see if automation improvements would help. Mr. Huff responded that the staff was undecided in making this recommendation. There are currently three clerical positions, plus a part-time person in this office. It is one of the County's largest divisions, and there are a lot of diverSe things going on there. The staff looked for a standard to apply as far as how many clerical people are needed for an office, and the clerical to staff ratio in other offices. He remarked that there was no bench mark to give a good insight into the appropriate number, but the Engineering staff feels pressured to get a lot of these things done. He asked about automating some of the functions whereas now they have to take a phone call for every transaction. There will be a learning curve if the automated way of handling these functions is chosen. His perspective, since the situation can go either way, is to take a year to study it to see if the automation reduces the transactions workload to any significant extent. Mr. Bowerman pointed out that $17,690 will still be spent on part-time help and the situation may dictate making this a full-time position anyway. Mr. Huff agreed. It was a $9,000 decision, and he was unsure as far as what to do about the situation. Ms. Thomas referred to the critical issues under the Water Resources Management section of the budget, and she asked if the County has enough resources to take care of all of them this year. Mr. Bill Brent, Executive Director of the Albemarle County Service Authority, answered that there is no question this department can use all of the people it can get. Water Resources Management also blends into site development review and erosion control efforts, etc. Ms. Thomas asked if the expectations should be that all of these things will be accomplished since there is now a Watershed Manager in the Water Resources Office. Mr. Brent replied that it will be a challenge to get all of the critical issues accomplished in one year, and he looks at them as more than just a one year workload isSue. He understands that a Rivanna employee is going to be assigned to watershed issues only, which will free up a lot of David Hirschman's time to help more with County issues. He said a re-definition of Mr. Hirschman's responsibilities is being done, and the Senior Engineer will also help with these critical issues. Mr. Tucker explained that the critical issues shown for the Water Resources Management area are not annual issues, although they are critical issues for the department that will need to be tackled. They are not intended to be done over the next fiscal year. Mr. Bowerman referred to Page 174 relating to ongoing funding for six bulky waste amnesty days per year under the Public Works department. He asked if there are four or six days involved presently. Mr. Brent answered that there are three Saturdays set aside for this activity, twice a year. Mr. Bowerman next asked for an explanation of the Leaf Amnesty Program. Mr. Brent responded that this is a new program. His department gets a lot of calls inquiring as to what to do with leaves in the fall and whether they should be taken to the Landfill or should they be composted. Mr. Bowerman noted that the leaves could be composted. Mr. Brent agreed. His staff is encouraging people to compost them. However, bulky wastes can be taken to the Landfill by paying County tipping fees, so leaves could also be collected and taken there. Mr. Bowerman inquired if the City leaf collection area is available for public use. Mr. Brent replied that the area is not available to the public. He mentioned that his office got a call March 17, 1999 (Adiourned Meeting) (Page 3) 000033 from a resident suggesting that the C°untY partner with the City to allow City trucks to come into the County. This would just extend the city's leaf colleCtion program. Ms. Humphris mentioned that she got an E-mail message relating to the same thing from a person in the Jack Jouett District, and immediately she thought of a lot of problems. The County is supposed to be encouraging composting, and even on a small piece of property, composting can be done. There is no excuse for not composting. She cannot imagine it would be a dollar priority for the County to have leaves picked up, and she does not think the taxpayers would want this to happen. It would also be hard to decide which neighborhoods would have their leaves picked up and which ones would not. She stated that she has not responded to the person, yet. However, her response is going to be that it sounds like a good idea, but when the issues are considered, it is not practical. She remarked that a lot of things can be done as far as composting is concerned. A neighborhood can buy a shredder, and it can be shared between property owners. Since the problem varies so much between property owners, the solution will also vary. She does not think this is something government should be trying to solve. Mr. Martin inquired if the Public Works section of the budget needs to be decreased. Mr. Bowerman responded that the Leaf Amnesty Program is not included in the recommended budget, so a decrease in the Public Works funding is not necessary. Mr. Marshall mentioned that the street signs are flimsy and hard to read, and he wondered if they are going to be replaced. Mr. Tucker answered that as the street signs become damaged, they will be replaced. Mr. Huff continued his presentation by saying that there is some ongoing funding requested for items that have been identified, as well as for median strip maintenance and mowing which have not been discussed. The recommendation is that additional ongoing funding for median strip maintenance and mowing of $15,600 be provided, and carry-over funds be used for bulky waste amnesty days, once the carry-over balance is known at the end of the year. Next, Ms. White discussed the Human Development section which is an $8,504,582 budget and includes all of the human development agencies. The Social Services Department involves 73 percent of the Human Development section, the Health Department is at nine percent, and Region Ten is at four percent. The smaller nonprofit human services agencies take up 14 percent of the Human Development budget, and it is a 4.9 percent total base line increase. The Department of Social Services manages over a $6,000,000 budget and 63 staff members, but it does not include the Bright Stars Program nor the Family Support Program. There are over 30 Child Protective Service assessments being done each month under the three year pilot program relating to the Multiple Response System. The foster care services are provided to over 120 children per month, and 22 children are currently in foster care and will be up for permanent placement and adoption. Approximately $3,000,000 is projected to be spent in the current year on CSA, ie., foster care, special ed, and residential treatment. As far as welfare reform statistics are concerned, since July, 1997 when it began, the TANF cases have dropped from 281 to 171, and the VIEW cases primarily dealing with employment rose from 107 to 150 cases. The biggest increase in the number of cases has been in the Medicaid caseload, where there is an increase of 280 cases. She remarked that the Eligibility Division has moved to a generic caseload which means that the eligibility workers can now work on food stamps, Medicaid and TANF cases, rather than having individual workers assigned to each of these different areas. All of the cases have been converted over to the ADAPT Program. The Bright Stars Program is now operating in four elementary schools and the Family Support Program that began this fall is operating in 15 elementary schools. Ms. White then mentioned critical issues. There is an ongoing significant foster care/adoption caseload increase, and over 150 cases are expected to be seen for the current year. Another critical issue relates to the time being spent per case due to recent changes in the Comprehensive Services Act (CSA), the Court Improvement Project at the state level and federal adoption requirements. Funding is requested for two additional foster care social workers, as well as CSA funds in the amount of $500,000. She mentioned that other Social Services' requests involve two FTE Child Protective Services social workers and some furniture for the administration area. Ongoing support and administration of the Bright Stars and Family Support early intervention program are also requested. The recommendation for Social Services is to fund the two foster care social workers at the total cost shown in the budget of $100,834. This will be offset by the $80,667 in state funds, so the County's cost is $20,167. Also funded in the budget is $250,000 in additional CSA funds. The school system is contributing an additional $175,000. There is a CSA projection next year of about $3,000,000, which is approximately the amount being spent this year. She added that the County is about to the point where it needs to be as far as local dollars are concerned, so the requests at the end of the year for supplemental funds may not be necessary. The staff has been trying to build this fund up every year by increasing the local transfer. Mr. Martin inquired if it is possible to compare the individuals served now versus the individuals served prior to the Comprehensive Services Act to see if there is an increase or a decrease. Ms. Kathy Ralston, Director of Social Services, responded that it is possible to get this information, but it would have to come from other systems. Mr. Martin said he would be interested in seeing the information if it is not a lot of work to get it. Ms. Ralston replied that she believes it would not be easily accessible. Ms. White March 17, 1999 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 4) 090034 suggested that perhaps the information is available at the state level. Mr. Martin stated that he thinks the information would be very helpful, although he does not want anybody to spend a lot of time on it. Ms. White next pointed out that the recommendation for two child protective services social workers is being withdrawn because these positions were not funded by the state. She noted that this frees up $32,164 in local dollars. Ms. Thomas wondered who will do the work that was going to be done by these two social workers. Ms. Ralston responded that the program will fall short without these two social workers, and it will mean overtime for the existing staff. There will be the inability to provide ongoing maintenance and the community, such as local service boards, will have to deal with this problem. Most of the families will not be served, although the Social Services Department will provide services to the critical cases. Ms. White then noted that another recommendation is to provide ongoing funding for the Bright Stars program at Cale Elementary School within base line funding. This funding is not considered as being expanded, but the money that was directed last year for the Cale program was done after the budget was adopted. This year the money had to be put into the operating budget as ongoing funds. Mr. Martin asked if there is a Bright Stars program at Stone-Robinson, Cale, Agnor-Hurt and Greer Elementary Schools. Ms. White answered affirmatively. The County Executive also recommends funding the Harmony software with current carry-over funds. Ms. Thomas mentioned the decreases in child care costs she has noticed throughout the budget, which she thinks are very impressive. It was only about a year ago when there was a report about the poor quality of day care, and she asked if this is still an issue. Ms. White responded that the quality is probably still an issue. However, people were not applying for funds in the current year, and there is no waiting list. There is additional money in this year's budget that will not be used, and that is the reason for the decrease in child care costs for next year. She noted that even children who were on the United Way's waiting list, who qualified for some of these funds, were assisted. Mr. Marshall inquired if this means there are not as many new people, or if there is a reduction in the number of people who have previously been getting this service. Ms. White stated that there was a reduction in the demand from people who had not been on the system before. Apparently there was an over estimation of the need for last year. Mr. Martin mentioned that he heard about someone trying to get business people interested in starting child care for their employees. Ms. White said Children and Family Services representatives are responsible for contacting businesses about child care programs. Mr. Marshall noted that people requesting some of these services are required to apply for jobs even though they know they are not going to take a job. He is spending a lot of time intervieWing people and giving them jobs, and a lot of the time they do not even show up for work the first day, or they will only work a short time. This is a tremendous imposition on employers. He suggested that if people have a certain amount of interviews and have not taken a job, then they should not receive benefits. Ms. White responded that there are restrictions relating to the VIEW Program as far as people who found employment and quit their job after a short time. There are some sanctions involved, and people are not allowed to find a job, quit it, and then keep receiving benefits. Mr. Marshall pointed out that some of these people bring a paper to employers for them to sign indicating they have had an interview. However, some of them never come back. They only have to have three interviews to receive benefits. Mr. Martin inquired if there is a feedback system involved. Ms. Ralston indicated that they have to put in 30 applications within the first 90 days, and they have to get a job. Mr. Bowerman stated that he was impressed with the VIEW program in which he was involved last winter. Mr. Marshall said because of his own experiences, he probably has a misconception about the situation. Next, Ms. Thomas called attention to the bottom of Page 204 where it mentions the continued evaluation of the Multiple Response System (MRS) of service delivery. This allows staff to focus on assessment rather than investigation in about 80 percent of the Child Protective Services complaints filed with the Department. She asked if this could be regarded as a way the staff is working with families rather than just putting them in foster care. Ms. Ralston remarked that she does not think there is a connection. She explained that the idea of MRS is to try not to stigmatize families with an investigation. The family members are put into a central registry where they get job leads, etc., and the least serious complaints go through assessment. She noted, though, that if something serious is found, the staff starts working with the family, and the child could be removed. Usually the cases involving an investigative track are the ones that are mandated by law such as sexual abuse or severe physical abuse. Ms. Humphris asked whether someone from the County places the children in foster homes or is this done by a Judge. She mentioned that a member of the public indicated that he had talked to a Judge, and he had informed him that it was not his decision. Ms. Ralston responded that the judges do not place the children. They make a decision based on a recommendation which is made through a CSA system involving an assessment planning team. She emphasized that there is a group of professionals making the decision, and a lot of what drives the placement is the severity of the child and the availability of the ~lacement. A lot of the more expensive placements take very specific kinds of children such as ones that are emotionally disturbed, have violent behavior, or are handicapped. Premium dollars are paid for these services, and there may only be one facility in the state to accommodate a certain child. Another option would be to send a child out of state. However, this option is not favored when permanency is trying to be established, as well as trying to create a connection with the biological family. March 17, 1999 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 5) 0'00035 Ms. White explained that there are recommendations from Social Services that children should be removed, and the Courts usually substantiate the decision. The Courts have been very supportive of the recommendations that have been made. Ms. Ralston pointed out that there have been many times when someone from the Social Services staff has gone to court only for a protective order, but the Judge feels that the child should be removed. She added that there are also times when the probation officer goes to court with a recommendation to place a child in foster care. Mr. Marshall inquired about whether or not siblings are separated. Ms. Ralston replied that siblings are kept together whenever possible. Ms. Thomas referred to Page 205 where it indicates that the County staff, in many cases, is having to correct the State Department of Social Services data relating to the conversion of Virginia's Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information System (SACWlS). She wondered if there is an estimate of how much this is costing the County. Ms. Ralston answered that no estimate is available, but it has had a big impact. She also noted that the state has decided that this system will not only be used for foster 'care, but it will be used for child protection, adult services, and day care. There will be more experiences such as this in the future. Mr. Marshall remarked that state budgets are being cut, and staffing the Health Department in Richmond has been difficult. There are empty offices, because people do not have job security there, so they leave. Ms. Humphris wondered who to contact to request that the State Department release correct information. She asked if the Governor is the only person who has power over the State Department of Social Services. Ms. Ralston replied that the Secretary of Public Services and the Governor are in charge of this department. Mr. Marshall stated that he has good rapport with the State Department, but the money is not available. Ms. Humphris remarked that it doesn't take any more money to put in the right data. Mr. Marshall noted that people are not available to work. There are jobs open in this County, but people cannot be found to do mediocre tasks. Ms. Humphris pointed out that if people are making these many errors in all the departments around the state, it is costing a huge fortune to correct data. Mr. Marshall said he would bring this matter up at the next state meeting he attends. Next, Ms. White discussed the Health Department and Region Ten. The biggest critical issue with the Health Department is that the state currently funds only 33 percent of the Health Department's operating budget, and local funds are required to cover the 6.25 percent salary increases for two-thirds of the positions. She remarked that the increasing local share of the Health Department budget will require greater clarification of mandated and non-mandated services, and the County is having to pay a greater percentage of these programs such as the Growing Healthy Families Program and the Dental Clinic, which are now nearly 100 percent locally funded. Region Ten's budget has the same type budget cutbacks on the State level which has caused a reduction in non-Medicaid mental health and mental retardation services. As a result, salary increases for Region Ten employees have averaged one percent over the past ten years, which has caused a growing turnover with some of its most qualified staff. Region Ten requested a 22 percent increase which is approximately $64,000, and the Health Department requested a 17 percent increase which is approximately $119,000. The County Executive's recommendation is to fund each of these agencies with a six percent increase, which is slightly more than was paid to the other agencies. Ms. Thomas commented that it is far too expensive for local government to fund health care. She called attention to the fact that this item was not even mentioned in the legislative requests. Ms. White stated that the same thing can be seen in a lot of the charts involving constitutional officers. As operating and salary increases develop, the State's share decreases, and the local share keeps growing. She added that sometimes it is not noticed within a certain year. However, if trends are examined, it can be seen that the State funding stays level. The local funding increases, though, and the County continues to pick up larger shares of salary and benefit increases. Mr. Marshall commented that a lot of this has to do with health care providers. Managed health care has put a whole new level of bureaucracy between the patient and the health care provider, and a lot of health care providers are leaving the profession, because they are not being paid enough. The people who are operating the managed health care institutions are getting a lot of money, and they have caused other things to happen that would not have happened, because the individual who is purchasing healthcare is not aware of the costs. Ms. Thomas responded that this does not explain why the state is consistently decreasing its support for public health. Mr. Marshall stated that he doesn't know why the state's share of funding for health issues is consistently decreasing, unless state officials are assuming that managed health care is working and costs are decreasing. He explained that when an individual pays a small co-pay, he or she is not aware of the real costs. It is another issue, and it is driving up health care costs. He noted that drugs have increased in cost 21 percent this year. (Mr. Bowerman left at 1:54 p.m.) Ms. Thomas inquired if the Board of Public Health has anything to do with the funding for the different departments. Mr. Marshall answered affirmatively. The State Board of Health asks for the appropriate funding, but it is not available, even though the need is there. He travels all over the State, and Albemarle County is lucky. He gave Danville, Virginia as an example where the Health Department is taking care of almost everybody. He said Dan River Mills is the largest employer, but it pays very small salaries and does not offer many health care benefits. The local physicians and druggists don't participate in the benefits that are offered because they are not reimbursed enough to make it worthwhile. The physicians won't see the patients, so their health care falls back on the Health Department. The Health March 17, 1999 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 6) OOOO; 6 Department delivers babies, fills prescriptions and sees patients. He noted that this type of thing is not seen in this community, because this area has a very good health atmosphere, with the two hospitals here as well as the private network. There are a lot of communities such as Danville all over this state where there is no health care. Mr. Martin remarked that he does not know what can be done about it, but Mr. Marshall's statements are true. Mr. Martin indicated that he grew up in a town such as Danville, where the people had to go to a town an hour and a half or two hours away for a baby to be delivered. Ms. Thomas stated that people in this community are spoiled, because the University Hospital takes many charity cases that the private practitioners don't have to take. The state cutbacks are statewide, and she thinks something should be done in the County's Legislative Program. Mr. Marshall remarked that he would appreciate the Board of Supervisors including this request in its Legislative Program. State officials need to be made aware that there is a tremendous shortfall in their funding. Mr. Martin agreed with Ms. Thomas and Mr. Marshall that this issue should be included in the County's Legislative package. Mr. Perkins pointed out that more money from the State was received this year for 599 funds and school programs than ever before. Ms. Thomas and Mr. Marshall both responded that increased funding comes in areas where there are a lot of demands for it. (Mr. Bowerman returned at '1:57 p.m.) Ms. White noted that the local share now is going to be two-thirds of the Health Department's budget. Services need to be examined to see which ones are mandatory and which ones the County is choosing to provide and County officials need to be cognizant as to these differences. The County may choose to fund them, but there will also be the option not to do so for the ones that are not mandatory. Ms. Humphris said seven or eight years ago there were some significant questions about why certain items in the Health Department budget ended up before the Board of Supervisors. It took about two years for everybody to agree on these particulars, but since then, everything has been very calm. Perhaps it is time for the Board of Supervisors to look specifically at line items. Mr. Marshall commented that this area is fortunate to have a lot of physicians and nurses donating their time, but in places such as Danville, this is not the case. Ms. Thomas noted that there are only about three dentists in this area who have not taken a few recipients and worked them through their dental problems this year. She was at a program where some of the recipients came and talked about the importance of this dental work. There were people who needed to apply for jobs, but they didn't want people to see their mouths. She added that there were others whose mouths were causing them discomfort. Ms. White pointed out there are some dentists who won't take children as patients. Ms. Thomas stated that the next goal is to find dentists who will work with children. Ms. White then discussed the human development agencies, where there is approximately $2,000,000 in funding going to 18 separate human service agencies. The Commission on Children and Families is involved in the agency budget review process for the first time this year, and the Commission has set some priority areas for increasing community agency collaboration and streamlining service delivery to: the Healthy Families/School Readiness Programs; Data Collection/Management for all the programs; Outcome Measures/Evaluation, which is a way to look at the success of the programs; and Seriously Troubled Adolescents, which are the type of children who can be seen in CSA. The Commission is currently administering about $163,235 in VJCCCA funds for seven juvenile justice programs and are in the process of establishing a Juvenile Justice Advisory Committee. Mr. Bowerman inquired as to the coordination between Region Ten and agencies such as the ARC and the Children and Youth Commission. There seems to be an overlap in some of the areas. Ms. White replied that Region Ten works with mentally retarded adults, as well as infant development programs. Region Ten had contracted ARC to provide some of these services in the past, but has now taken some of them back. There are some services provided by Region Ten to families with children, but these are different from the other children's programs. Mr. Bowerman noted that he read about the infant development programs under the ARC program, but he also saw them listed in another place. He asked why this is the case. Ms. White answered that they are different types of programs. She explained that one is a home based program where people go into the homes and work with families. Mr. Bowerman asked if the programs are coordinated. Ms. White stated that when different agencies have wanted to provide some of these same services, they have been told that Region Ten is the community's mental health and mental retardation center. There are ongoing programs and they have been in place for some time. However, when new programs are mentioned, agencies are told that Region Ten is the main program for delivering such services. Mr. Bowerman remarked that he did not know ARC dealt with infant development. Ms. White responded that the ARC has been doing so for several years. Mr. Martin commented that he thinks Ms. White and the review team do a good job in pointing out when there is an overlap. Mr. Bowerman concurred that the budget process is so much better coordinated than it used to be. Ms. White remarked that there are some instances where other agencies will have access to a grant, and they will get funding March 17, 1999 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 7) O000G7 from another source. They cannot be stopped from doing so. Mr. Bowerman mentioned that these agencies may not always know that there are other ongoing programs in the community. Mr. Martin stated that the agency giving the grant probably does not know this fact. The Department of Criminal Justice, where a lot of these grants are issued, looks very closely at community participation. There may be five or six different agencies working together to get a grant, and the grant for which they are applying may offer the same services that another agency is already providing. Ms. White explained that now, in order to apply for grants, agencies have to come to the County or City or Commission on Children and Families to get letters of support. Mr. Bowerman remarked that he was not being critical. He said it seemed at first glance that there could be the possibility of an overlap. Ms. White discussed the critical issues relating to human development agencies. The first critical need involves the growing number of elderly residents in the County. She added that another critical issue is the need to expand prevention and early intervention efforts while still providing crisis management services to children and families. The human services delivery system should be streamlined, and this is being done under the direction of the Commission on Children and Families. There is an acute need to develop the centralized data collection for human services agencies and link program outcomes to stated community priorities. She noted that this is also being done in conjunction with the Commission on Children and Families. Mr. Martin commented that over the years he has become convinced that mentoring and fathering programs are some of the most effective kinds of programs, and the Department of Criminal Justice has been trying to approve more grants that have fathering issues involved in them. He added that this community has a strong fathering program, and he wondered how the Supervisors could influence the community's efforts in this area. He said he does not think the fathering initiative gets any funding from the County. Ms. White said a request was expected this year, but it didn't happen. Mr. Martin remarked that he is not talking about funding this particular program as much as trying to integrate this initiative into other programs that are already available and increasing the emphasis and the need to teach young boys how to be men. The lack of a role model creates a lot of problems, and he personally would like for this Board to do whatever it can do to have more fathering types of programs. Ms. White suggested that if other Board members are in agreement, they could make a request to the Commission on Children and Families for such an initiative. The Commission will be coordinating these programs, and Commission members can make sure that these programs are not only included but that there is an emphasis placed on them. Mr. Martin stated that more and more he has come to believe that there are boys growing up with no concept of what it is to be a man. Ms. Humphris mentioned that the fathering initiatives could probably help the success of all the programs. The female side of children having children is always being discussed, but it works both ways. Ms. White stated that the County Executive's recommendation for the human development agencies is for five percent increases for the agencies' operational budgets and $5,674 for JABA's congregate meals, home and fee delivered meals. There is an increase for Madison House to provide a graduate assistant to help with its programs, as well as new funding of $3,260 for an AIDS support group. A local match of $1,250 for Children, Youth and Family Services is being recommended to help draw down more federal money for the Runaway Emergency Shelter program. She also noted that $25,000 for the Growing Healthy Families Program is being recommended, although at this point'the funding is not for a specific program. She said it is recommended that these funds be given to the Commission on Children and Families and then they can be allocated to one or several of the Healthy Families agencies. Ms. Thomas mentioned that the Venture program had hoped to get some funding this year, but it was not in the proposal. Ms. White remarked that there are still possibilities for additional funding since there are some grants for which the Commission has applied. The request was for an increase of over $100,000, but both the City and County officials indicated they would wait to see what happens with some of the federal and state funds. Ms. White then noted that there is an additional operating cost for PVCC of $1,715, as well as a PVCC capital request of $18,618 which has been done through the CIP. She explained that this is the County's share and the first of two annual payments for the renovations of the new communications building there. Mr. Martin called attention to the Sexual Assault Resource Agency (SARA) shown on Page 219. It was his understanding that part of the reason this agency was not fully funded has to do with the fact that it has been overfunded in the past based on the County's share as compared to the City. He stated that rather than get into a debate, he would propose that $2,790 be put on the list to be discussed. He suggested that this Board may want to continue to over fund the County's share for this agency. Ms. White responded that the Shelter for Help in Emergency is the agency that was overfunded by the County. The City and County are funding SARA at approximately the same rate. Ms. Thomas mentioned that she has read some comments that make it seem as though SARA should work a bit harder on its application and data collection. She hates to undercut the process, which she really admires, since there is a review team that considers these things and makes recommendations. She asked if SARA was not being given its full funding request because the agency was being penalized. Ms. White responded that SARA's application needs improvement in the way its material is presented. 0O0O;38 March 17, 1999 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 8) SARA's request for an increase was substantial, and the recommendation did not represent a penalty. The Committee felt as though a case had not been made for this much additional funding, and the five percent base line increase was sufficient. Mr. Bowerman asked about the difference between the recommendation and the request. Mr. Martin replied that the difference is $2,790. Ms. White explained that SARA's request for the past several years has been fairly level. She reiterated that the Committee felt as though the information was not brought together enough to justify the increase. Mr. Martin stated that he would like to add SARA's request to the list for further discussion. Ms. Humphris commented that she wonders about the justification of giving the other agencies a five percent increase, and giving SARA more. Mr. Martin answered that one way to justify the increase is to look at the history of the funding for SARA, which has been level for several years. Mr. Bowerman remarked that SARA has had substantial assistance from the Police Department and courts with sexual assault in terms of increased emphasis, and the flexibility the officers have in making arrests or taking away a spouse. He said with better cooperation from the legal system and the crime policing system, significant resources have been brought to bear along with the help that SARA provides, as well as the Shelter and the Victim Witness Program. If this whole system works properly, it should end up in efficiencies, but he does not know how to divide the responsibilities. The Commonwealth Attorney's Office and the Police Department have become much more aware of this issue and are much more pro active than in years past. He is not saying that SARA doesn't deserve the funding. Ms. Thomas stated that she read an article in the newspaper recently that SARA and similar agencies are saving lives for an unexpected group of people. The abused women who finally retaliate do so with great violence and husband's lives are being saved by these kinds of programs. Mr. Bowerman commented that he was making the point that it is a combined effort in the community to reduce this particular problem. Ms. White explained that part of the request for additional funding is for an adolescent program. Ms. Humphris pointed out that it made a tremendous difference when the University of Virginia set up its program and developed a way of handling cases that was different from SARA's process. She was at the University recently studying some of the statistics and noticed that only two or four rapes had been reported. This bothers her because she wondered if rapes are not reported, and if they are handled in a different way so there are no criminal charges, tf so, she asked if this is the right thing to do. It might be helpful to learn more about what the University is doing with its program. Mr. Martin said SARA is still actively involved with rape cases. Ms. White reported that the University continues to use SARA's services. Mr. Martin reiterated that SARA's request be added to the list. Ms. Thomas mentioned the section on mental health on Page 195, and she said there is no explanation as to why this request is not being funded. She noted, though, that the County is increasing the funding to six percent which is more than the five percent for other agencies. Ms. White said there are funding limitations involved as well as an agreement which has been worked out with the City. Parks, Recreation and Culture was the next category discussed. Mr. Huff explained that 32 percent of this function relates to the Parks and Recreation Department, and 47 percent of the function represents the County's contribution to the regional library. There are seven County parks comprising over 2,000 acres, as well as three community centers and two City and County park areas. He said 50,000 visitors come to the County's swimming beaches annually, and there are ten summer playground sites with a total registration of 674 children, including 23 special needs children. Average daily attendance is 388 in those programs. There are 7,000 participants in outdoor field sports, and 221 people participate in swimming lessons. There are 2,140 children in the Youth Basketball Program, and there are 78 fee-based classes annually with approximately 1,700 participants. He reported that total circulation at the regional library in FY 1998 was 472,019 which is up 5.2 percent from the prior fiscal year. Ms. Thomas inquired if computer use for the library is being tracked. This will not show in the circulation figures and because of this, someday the circulation will show a decrease. Mr. Huff said the number of visits to the computer lab is being tracked, and that is one reason for funding the Sunday hours. He explained that the library was open on Sundays, but the lab was not open. The critical issues for Parks and Recreation involve the increase in the number of special needs children requiring one-on-one or two-on-one supervision in the Summer Playground Program. He explained that the staffing level is kept at 20 to one in the Summer Playground Program, and it has proven to be very difficult as the number of special needs children continues to increase. Another critical issue relates to funding expensive equipment replacement needs within modest operational increases. He mentioned that the FY 2000 request includes a new dump truck for the ball field crew and a riding mower for the maintenance division. There is a need for funding annual increases in contract costs such as the County's share of Towe Park operations and the Therapeutic Program, within budget constraints, and redefining maintenance responsibilities to shift stormwater detention basin maintenance and median strip mowing/upkeep to the expanding Public Works division. As the demand for athletic field maintenance increases, there is the need to shift the stormwater detention basin maintenance and median strip mowing to the public works March 17, 1999 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 9) function to free up the Parks and Recreation Department employees to increase the attention to ball field maintenance. Mr. Martin asked for an explanation of the Public Works Division. Mr. Huff replied that the Public Works Division is a part of the Engineering Department and takes care of such things as storm water detention basin maintenance. He explained that most of this work is handled by contract. Mr. Tucker said the Public Works Division also manages the capital projects for the school system. Mr. Huff stated that the recommendation is to fund ten Summer Playground special needs assistance programs to help with the increasing numbers in the playground program for a cost of $16,205. Another recommendation is to fund an additional capital replacement and increased contract costs within base line operations and to use current year carry-over to purchase the dump truck and riding mower. Mr. Mullaney has agreed to fund as much as possible from the current year, but if he is unable to do so, the end of the year carry-over will be considered to help him with some of his capital needs. Mr. Marshall thanked Mr. Mullaney for all of the work his department did at Yancey School as well as Scottsville. He said Mr. Jim Murray wants to contribute some money to Yancey Elementary School for Parks and Recreation. He suggested that Mr. Mullaney call Mr. Murray, since Mr. Murray had been trying to talk to the Principal there, and had not been able to do so. Ms. White stated that the critical issues for the Library category relate to the fact that Albemarle's share of circulation is increasing at Central, Northside and generally overall. She explained that the highest circulation per FTE in the region is at Northside, and in 1998, Northside's workload was 46 percent above the Regional Library's average of 30,814 circulation per FTE. A full-time Library Assistant and 12 Hr/Week Library Clerk at Northside has been requested. She added that the number of books purchased, catalogued, processed and mended has quadrupled since 1989, but technical services staff has decreased. This is the reason there is a request for a full-time Technical Services Librarian. Library space needs have to be considered to be sure ADA requirements are met so some additional money is requested to fund a Central Library Architectural Assessment. Ms. White also noted that the Mont-AW Internet Lab is closed on Sundays. However, over 1,000 patrons use the internet lab each month, so Sunday hours have been requested by the Mont-AW Executive Committee. She commented that recommendations for the library include the funding of a full-time Library Assistant at Northside for $18,452, as well as a full-time Technical Services Librarian at Central to be hired in January, 2000 at $7,227. Another recommendation is to fund Mont-AW Sunday hours at $1,050. She called attention to the fact that the 12 hour a week assistant at Northside was not recommended. However, the Architectural Assessment out of Library one time funds of $5,700 was recommended. Mr. Bowerman mentioned that, as far as capital needs are concerned, there is expected growth in the northern part of the County. He said in addition to school sites, a public library facility such as a northern extension to the library should be considered. This will be necessary if in-fill works as a concept and things are done that the public sector is going to need. Ms. White said that the library is supposed to finish its capital plan by December. Mr. Bowerman asked about the lease expiration date at Albemarle Square. Ms. White responded that the expiration date is 2001. Mr. Bowerman said the signing of the agreement for the library to be located at Albemarle Square caused the renovation at that shopping center, and he hopes the Library is not held captive by the agreement. Ms. White commented that there will be some bargaining taking place. Mr. Bowerman mentioned that the library has been a great service benefit for the community. Ms. Thomas inquired as to the interest the other Board members may have in adding the library clerk's position to the list for discussion. Mr. Bowerman said the library is one way people receive information, and the Supervisors should support it any way they can. He said this is a critical need, if the library is one person short, then that tYpe of circulation is involved. Ms. White asked if Ms. Thomas is suggesting that the $3,236 for a 12 hour a week assistant's position at Northside Library be put on the list. Ms. Thomas said she does not feel strongly about the 12 hour a week position, and although it is not much money, she had thought nothing was going to be added to the Library staff. Mr. Tucker inquired if Ms. Thomas wants this position on the list to be considered. Ms. Thomas replied, "no." Mr. Martin called attention to the fact that there has been no discussion about the Virginia Discovery Museum, the Piedmont Council of the Arts, the Literacy Volunteers Program nor the Valley Educational Television Corporation (WVPT). Ms. White responded that all of these agencies were funded as requested. Next, Ms. White talked about the Tourism category. She mentioned that the Tourism Transfer increases by almost $100,000 this year which is based on the projected lodging tax receipts. There is a total for 1999-2000 of $709,720 which funds the Visitor's Bureau in the amount of $129,250, as well as Tourism Development at $150,000, which is given to the Visitor's Bureau and is used by the Tourism Council for tourism projects. It also funds capital projects such as the Rivanna Greenway and River Access Improvements at $80,000 which is money that is being transferred from the Tourism Fund to the CIP. She explained that what is left of the $709,720 is a reserve of $350,470, and it is earmarked for the PDR program. She noted that additional funds have been requested from the Virginia Festival of the March 17, 1999 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 10) 000040 Book, the Virginia Film Festival and the Virginia Artisan Studio Tour totaling $26,125. There is the feeling more requests will be coming for very small amounts, so rather than funding some of these smaller agencies, the recommendation is to set aside $40,000 in the Tourism Reserve Funds. She explained that the City will also fund $40,000 which will be given to the Visitor's Bureau in conjunction with the Tourism Council. They will then have to make recommendations as to which ones they would like to fund and what projects they think are related to tourism. It gives the responsibility for making decisions about these small groups to the Visitor's Bureau. Ms. Humphris said she thought it was important that anything funded with tax dollars had a positive track record that could be shown to this Board as well as demonstrable numbers of participants and the economic benefit to the entire community. She is concerned about funding the $40,000 to the Visitor's Bureau because the County will have no control over how it is spent. She thinks this is pointed out by the Virginia Artisans Studio Tour, because she does not think very many people have ever heard of it. She has seen ads in the paper, but it has not been highly advertised. She has no knowledge of how many people it brings into the state or if it is just reaching people who live in the neighborhood. If this is the case, it is of no economic advantage to the taxpayers, although it certainly would be to the artisans themselves. It might be a very worthwhile thing, but it would not fit her criteria of where the taxpayers' dollars should go. She then mentioned that the Virginia Festival of the Book is asking for an additional $5,000 this year, and she wondered about this agency's financial well-being. She said $40,000 is a significant amount of money to put in other people's pockets and allow them to deal with it. Even though it saves County officials from making these types of decisions, they will still get the blame for it, if it doesn't go to the right places or in the right proportional amounts. She would be glad to hear other Board members' comments, but she is concerned about this recommendation. Mr. Marshall stated that he would like to see the $40,000 go to the Paramount Theater. There will come a time when this funding will be requested, and he thinks it is an extremely worthwhile projebt. The Paramount Theater will be a tremendous benefit to this community. Ms. Thomas suggested that perhaps County officials could get advice from the Tourism Council about requests for such agencies as the Artisans Tour. She remarked that she went to a recent meeting of the Tourism Council, and Council members were discussing their activities the weekend before Christmas. They were asked how many people were brought in from out of state, and they replied that in the tourism industry it is an accepted fact that for the first five or six years only local people are involved. The local people tell their friends, and it grows into a real tourism project. It is a gamble for a while. Ms. White inquired if Ms. Humphris is interested in the County funding these groups and then have the Tourism Council make recommendations to County officials as to whether Council members think certain funding should take place. Ms. Humphris remarked that this is not exactly what she had in mind. The Virginia Artisans Studio Tour does not fit the available criteria, and she does not think taxpayers' money is supposed to be handed out and used in such situations. She emphasized that the County is not a start up group. The County is not making these types of things possible, but it is just solidifying things that are already in existence. She feels rather strongly about this, because every agency will be wanting a Share of this money. Mr. Martin said after this discussion it is his conclusion that the $40,000 should be set aside until recommendations are made by the Tourism Council. Then, the Board of Supervisors will make the final decision. He next mentioned that he noticed there was $350,000 available for the PDR program, and he wondered if there is other money set aside for this purpose also. Mr. Tucker explained that there is $500,000 that can be used for this purpose, but it brings the Fund Balance to zero. Mr. Martin said this will make a total of $850,000 in reserve for PDR programs. Mr. Tucker answered affirmatively. Ms. Thomas remarked that there is a five percent lodging tax, and three percent of this tax has to go to tourism projects and two percent is going straight into the general fund. She wondered if the two percent could also be earmarked for certain items, if it becomes necessary. Mr. Tucker responded that this money has been used for other things in the past. Ms. Thomas said she was wondering if the two percent from the lodging tax should go into the PDR program. She noted that there is a state requirement that each project has to be analyzed as far as its value and where it falls on the tourism spectrum. Mr. Martin asked if Ms. Thomas is indicating 'that the two percent would not be additional funding, but instead it would be set aside for the PDR programs, so there will not be restrictions placed on it. Ms. Thomas reminded Board members that the Committee suggested that $1,000,000 should be set aside for the PDR program, and that is why she was looking for additional funding. Ms. White informed the Supervisors that there have been several requests for funding for the Virginia Festival of the Book, the Virginia Film Festival and the Virginia Artisans Studio Tour. She inquired if the Board would like for her to bring back information about these agencies to the next work session. Mr. Martin said it appears Ms. Humphris is suggesting that $10,000 be given to both the Virginia Festival of the Book and the Virginia Film Festival, but that nothing be given to the Virginia Artisans Studio Tour. He has no problem with this suggestion: Ms. Humphris answered that she didn't really suggest it, but she thinks it is a good idea. She noted that she does not know the justification for the additional $5,000 request. Ms. White replied that the $5,000 is for an increase in the Virginia Festival of the Book's operating budget. Ms. Humphris said she felt it was a good boost to the program when the County funded March 17, 1999 (Adiourned Meeting) (Page 11) OOOO4i $10,000. Mr. Martin asked ifa motion is needed. Board members suggested that the item be put on the list for a vote at a later time. Mr. Tucker informed Ms. Thomas that the amount of the two percent of the lodging tax is $456,000, and it is already in the general fund. He said this is how the budget is balanced. If this amount is used to fund the PDR programs, some of the other projects would have to be eliminated from the budget. Mr. Perkins referred to the Gypsy Moth Program included in the Parks and Recreation category on Page 253 of the budget. There have been no Gypsy Moths in the area for the last couple of years, so he thinks this program can be eliminated. He noted that the Parks and Recreation Department contracts with another organization to examine the area for evidence of Gypsy Moths. It takes several years for the Gypsy Moths to build up in an area, so the County officials would be forewarned before a tremendous population of them begins. Ms. Humphris noted that people such as Mr. Perkins are always out where they can identify them. Mr. Perkins agreed that the Forestry Service would be aware of it if there are any Gypsy Moths in the area. Mr. Bowerman stated that the egg mass is easy to identify. Ms. Humphris inquired if Mr. Perkins is suggesting that $13,000 does not need to be paid to have someone looking for Gypsy Moths. Mr. Martin suggested that an update on the Gypsy Moth Program be brought back to Board members at the next work session. Mr. Huff next discussed Community Development which has a base line increase of 5.7 percent. He stated that over the past five years, population has grown at 2.3 percent a year and over the next five years, the population is expected to grow at 2.1 percent. He reported that there were 169 site plans submitted for review in 1998 which is a 12 percent increase over 1997. He referred to the impact this increase has had on the Engineering Department, and he said it has also had an effect on Community Development. He reported that there were 1,983 building permits issued in 1998 which is an increase of approximately three percent from 1997 and 19 percent from 1996. He noted that the critical issues for the Development Department relate to the increase in the number of submittals of all kinds. In order to address this problem, there is a request for an additional Planning Technician, an additional Zoning Assistant and additional Zoning inspector overtime. The implementation of the Development Area Initiatives Study (DISC) recommendations is another critical issue. He added that the consultant's services requested for development of two neighborhood plans, including the Hollymead/Piney Mountain area as far as rewriting some of the ordinances which may come as a result of the DISC recommendations, was identified as a critical issue. The County Executive's recommendation includes funding for the Planning Technician and the Zoning Assistant for plan and permit review, both to be hired in October. The County Executive also recommends the $1,125 additional funding for the Zoning inspector overtime. The staff recommends waiting to see the recommendations from the DISC consultant after the report is completed and the Board has had an opportunity to identify those priorities. Funding at that time can be considered from the General Fund Balance, but there is no indication as to the amount of money that will need to be funded. Ms. Thomas mentioned the uncertainty of not knowing how much money will be needed for the DISC Committee recommendations. Mr. Bowerman stated that the changes involved will only relate to the ordinances and plans and not physical improvements. Ms. Thomas referred to the concept of neighborhood planning. Mr. Cilimberg stated that he has had people from the neighborhoods tell him that they will develop the plans, if the plans are laid out for them and they are told how to do it. These are the kind of plans that were expected to be developed. He agreed with Mr. Bowerman that physical improvements relate to capital projects. Mr. Bowerman remarked that developers own a lot of large parcels of land. He said developers should be able to take the recommendations from the DISC Committee, with the enabling legislation that is identified as being impediments for things that need to be encouraged, and they should be able to master plan and spend their money following the DISC Committee's guidelines. He reminded the Supervisors that it is the developers' land, but it is the County officials' concept of community development, in fill and density. Mr. Martin commented that County officials may want to have a plan to lay out the concept for the whole area. Mr. Bowerman said there are a number of plans that can be brought forward by the developer for large parcels of land that can be developed, and he mentioned some of those parcels, such as the Towers property. Ms. Thomas wondered about the situation if it was "intersectionville". She did not think the developers should guess whether or not they are making plans according to County officials' wishes. Mr. Bowerman responded that they should not have to guess. Ms. Thomas added that there should be a sufficient level of detailed plans so developers will have an idea of what County officials want. Mr. Bowerman asked if the detailed plans will include the amount of commercial and industrial square feet; how much high density residential area will be involved, as well as the number of school sites and public facility sites. He wondered if the developer should be informed that interconnected streets are desired, but cul~de-sac roads are not. It could then be announced that this is the type of community in which people will live, work and walk to school, and he wondered if this is the type of plan the Supervisors want to give the developers. Mr. Cilimberg said the Board of Supervisors will have to decide about the plan they feel is necessary to get the desired results. He stated that "intersectionville" is a specific idea laid out on paper March 17, 1999 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 12) 000042, as to how an area can be developed, although he is not saying that is what should be done here. The Towers property is a pretty specific design concept, and he noted that the next level will involve a lot of details, and it will not be a cheap proposition. Ms. Thomas pointed out that it will not be a small task that can be picked up easily. Mr. Tucker added that a dollar figure cannot be attached to the project until the policy decision is made. He referred to the June 30 Fund Balance when additional revenue should be available as well as some savings from this year's expenditures. The Fund Balance will grow, although it has a zero balance at this time because the balance was allocated to the PDR program. This is when the DISC program will be funded. Some time after that, it can be decided how conceptual the program needs to be. He then mentioned the reversion issue. After the Supreme Court makes its decision, legal fees will have to be funded. Mr. Marshall stated that the reversion issue will also affect the DISC recommendations. Ms. Thomas asked if Mr. Bowerman has any more questions about community concept plans, etc. Mr. Bowerman responded that he is unsure what type of specificity the Board of Supervisors should propose. Ms. Thomas said it appears this is something that will have to be discussed and a decision made by the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Bowerman concurred. Mr. Martin remarked that it is a fact a large sum of money will be required for zoning, etc., but Mr. Tucker has indicated that there should be money available for this project in the Fund Balance after June 30, 1999. Ms. Thomas then referred to Page 269 where GIS is mentioned. She wants to make sure the County is not duplicating anything that is being done by the County Service Authority, the Planning District Commission or private industry. Mr. Cilimberg replied that there is a lot of interaction with other providers in the area. The project being considered will carry forth a test pilot project for all tax map parcels. Mr. Bowerman wondered if there is a public sector of GIS satellite data available now. Mr. Cilimberg replied that consideration will be given to whether the GIS data will be satellite or aerial. Mr. Bowerman stated that the satellite data is available now. He noted that the pictures are in the public realm and some of them are two meters in size. Mr. Perkins commented that two meters do not represent a very big area. Mr. Bowerman answered that two meters represents six feet, and the pictures don't have to be put together. There is a lot of technology available from existing satellite data that is now digitized and in the public sector. Mr. Perkins stated that correction factors are involved with satellite data. Mr. Bowerman concurred that there are correction factors with GIS in terms of the location in a given second. He said, though, the maps and photographs exist and a resolution can be related to the County tax map parcels to the point where they can be mapped with GIS so they will be digitized and available. The state would have the data base. He is referring to imaging and mapping. Mr. Cilimberg commented that the layers of mapping is a digitized system. Ms. Thomas again stated that she wanted to make sure some of this is not being duplicated. Mr. Cilimberg said the Service Authority representatives have informed him that they are glad the County will be doing tax map parcel digitization because the Service Authority needs it. The Authority started this process some time ago, but it was very involved. Mr. Bowerman commented that he thought the state was moving toward the purchase of the aerial satellite. Mr. Cilimberg said the sources and the product are being discussed, and they are two different things. He stated that GIS is the product. The sources are aerials and satellites, which is another part that has not been actually finalized in terms of contract or RFP. He remarked that further research is needed. Ms. Thomas mentioned that there are a few groups in the community who are critical about how slow the Comprehensive Plan process is going. She wondered if this budget is giving the types of resources needed to do the planning in a timely fashion. Mr. Cilimberg answered that the time frame is uncertain since there are certain projects for which the staff is already committed which delays the work on the Comprehensive Plan. He reminded Board members that they have seen the Planning staffs work program which has a list of two year projects, as well as total projects. He noted that the projects require more staff, but there is no where for them to work. He said how quickly things get accomplished is not only based on staffing, but also on physical accommodations. Ms. White next described critical issues for Community Development agencies, and she noted the ongoing County support for AHIP's rehabilitation emergency repair and housing development programs in light of declining state revenues for housing. She mentioned that MACAA representatives have estimated that their staff compensation is 10 to 30 percent below comparable community positions, and they have requested an additional $53,181 from Albemarle County for a ten percent salary adjustment pool. MACAA also needs to replace the successful Community Assessment Program (CAP) which was formerly housed and managed by the Salvation Army. Continued support is needed for the Piedmont Housing Alliance's (PHA) regional loan funds and development program, as well as Homeownership and Fair Housing initiatives. There is increasing activity in the RideShare Program at TJPDC which requires additional staffing, and there is a CTS request to fund a County bus route to Pantops at a cost of $56,000. Ms. White said the recommendations are to increase agency operational budgets five percent and to fund a 25 percent phased salary adjustment for MACAA at $6,600. She explained that MACAA representatives asked for 100 percent of their salary increase pool from the County and the City. The recommendation is for the County to pay 25 percent of its share and for MACAA representatives to go to the private business sector, the community fund raising aspect and the state to fund the other 75 percent. The County would be a partner in this endeavor but would not be funding 100 percent of the salary increase. She went on to March 17, 1999 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 13) 00004,3 say funding is also recommended for the Community Assessment Program and the Centralized Intake at MACAA at a total of $17,600. In response to the PHA's request for additional money for the Fair Housing and Home Ownership Program, rather than providing them with funding, staff assistance or housing counsel from the Housing Office to PHA is being recommended. This is an attempt to use some of the resources that are in the County's own office in order to help the regional program grow and develop. The recommendation is to see what kind of regional program can be developed, and at the end of the year, a decision will be made as to whether or not it will be a permanent transfer of staff to a regional program. She remarked that the Housing Initiative Fund is also being recommended, and she referred to the PHA's budget where it has increased $50,000. This is a recommendation to take the Housing Initiative's fund that was approved last year in the Housing Office's budget and transfer it to PHA. The reason for this is that the PHA is a nonprofit entity and has a lot more flexibility in actually lending out funds to individuals and groups and being able to get interest and payment from these funds. They also have the ability to use the funds to leverage some additional state and federal funds. The County does not have the flexibility to do this, so the maximum benefit of the funds will come if it is taken out of the County and given to PHA. There is a recommendation to fund additional RideShare Program staff at $6,124, as well as funding the County's share of the Rivanna River Basin Corridor Study at $10,000. The other agencies in the Community Development Department are listed in the budget information. Mr. Martin referred to a memo from Ken Ackerman, Executive Director of the Monticello Area Community Action Agency, (MACAA) where he requested funding for a Disabilities Coordinator position for the Head Start Program. Mr. Martin wondered about the federal expectations for disabled children. Ms. White answered that the federal government recommended that disabled children comprise ten percent of Head Start's total enrollment and that a Disabilities Coordinator position be added. She added that the County did not fund this position because it was felt the County puts its own emphasis on the four- year-old program and should not begin to fund Head Start Programs. It was also felt that the responsibility for working with children with special education needs over three years of age is the responsibility of the school division. The school division helps to provide these types of services. Mr. Martin commented that children over two years of age, instead of three, are the responsibility of the school system, and he wondered if there was a way to coordinate the Disabilities Coordinator position with the school system. Ms. White replied that coordination is already being done with the school system, but the Disabilities Coordinator would help facilitate the services. Mr. Martin noted that this apparently was a problem in the recent past. Ms. White concurred. The federal audit indicated that a coordinator position was needed. Mr. Martin stated that he would like to add this item to the list for further discussion, and he would like for Mr. Ackerman to come to the next budget work session and be involved in the discussion. He said he would hate to see the Head Start Program cease to exist, and he sensed some urgency in Mr. Ackerman's letter. Mr. Bowerman inquired as to how much money is involved for the Disabilities Coordinator position. Mr. Martin responded that the total amount for the position is $28,481, and Albemarle County's share is $7, 211. Ms. Humphris pointed out that this will be getting the County involved in another program, and the County is already involved in its own four-year-old program. Mr. Martin remarked that the school system has to provide certain things for disabled children over two years, and some of this is done through the PREP program, as well as through programs in individual schools. However, MACAA is serving all of the Head Start children who are getting an education prior to the County's programs. He said in order to serve the at-risk three and four-year-old child there has to be ten percent disabled children in the Head Start Program. He explained that if the school system has ten percent of the disabled children in the school system, then MACAA will not be able to serve the other 90 percent, because these children are three year olds, and Albemarle County does not have such services for children of this age. Ms. Humphris stated that only a confused bureaucracy could make such a regulation. Mr. Martin stated that last year there were 215 students served Countywide in the Head Start program. Ms. White pointed out that there were 37 students in the program with special needs. Mr. Martin said if these 37 students were put in the PREP Program, it will keep MACAA from being able to serve the other 200 plus children. He explained that these are at risk three-year olds. Ms. Humphris noted that 17 percent of MACAA's total enrollment relates to children with special needs, which is significantly above the ten percent requirement. Ms. Thomas remarked that the Coordinator is already on duty. The Coordinator is meeting the requirements and that is why 17 percent of the children with special needs are involved in the program. Mr. Bowerman agreed with Mr. Martin that it would be good if Mr. Ackerman came to the next work session for a discussion of this situation. Ms. Humphris noted that she had just seen the memo from Mr. Ackerman, and her first response is that the Board members have to be careful not to get involved in new and additional funding without understanding all of the future implicati°nsl She hopes Mr. Ackerman, as well as Ms. White, can go further in their discussion than the information already in front of the Board and each give an analysis of the potential impact of this funding. Ms. Ginnie McDonald, Director of Housing, discussed the Housing category ~n the budget. An initial investment of $50,000 last year will have doubled to $100,000 this year. She stated that hopefully March 17, 1999 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 14) 000044 there will be another $50,000 for the coming year which will make $200,000 to be used for that program in the future. She said community development is now in the region. Mr. Martin asked if the request for $100,000 is for the community development program. Ms. McDonald answered that the request is for $500,000. (Note: At 3:25 p.m., the Board recessed. The Board reconvened at 3:40 p.m.) FY 1999/2000 Capital Budget/Debt Service. Ms. White showed slides and briefly discussed the Capital Budget and Debt Service for FY 1999/2000. The staff has tried to make the capital budget more in conjunction with the operating budget in case Board members had any changes they may want to make between allocating resources between operations and the Capital Budget. She noted that the first slide shows a pie chart of the CIP for next year with the schools occupying the largest section which is 50 percent. The total CIP is $7,650,660, which is a relatively small year compared to what the CIP has been in the past. School projects involve $3,836,000 of the CIP, general government's projects are shown at $3,700,000 and the Tourism Projects amount to $80,000. She would not discuss the list of general government projects for next year, but there is a complete description of all the projects on Page 322 of the budget. She noted that the biggest project relates to the Juvenile Detention Facility which is borrowed funds and amounts to $1,465,725. Another general government project that will take quite a bit of local dollars is the maintenance and repair of the facilities at the County Office Building which amounts to $824,160. She would be glad to answer questions on any of the items shown on the CIP proiect list. Ms. White went on to explain that the Keene Landfill Closure project amounts to $75,000 and there is $80,000 shown for the Tourism Capital Project. She then described school division proiects totaling $3,835,805, and she reiterated that this is a very Iow amount for an annual contribution. The largest amounts relating to school division projects involve Western Albemarle High School building renovations at $502,000 and the Northern Elementary School projects at $300,000. Mr. Marshall called attention to the amount of $971,504 for the Northern Elementary School, and he wondered how this money will be used. Mr. Huff replied that it is for land acquisition and to get designs started for the school. Mr. Marshall wondered if this is enough for land acquisition. Mr. Huff answered that there is $390,000 already set aside. Ms. Humphris mentioned the schedule on Page 320 under the Highways category where it shows zero funding for the Georgetown Road sidewalk project during the five year period and very little in the out-year. The Six Year Secondary Road agreement shows funding for the spot improvements of either $600,000 or $800,000 to be done within a couple of years. She added that these projects of necessity will have to be coordinated, so some adjustment needs to be made in order for VDoT to proceed as planned. Mr. Bowerman asked what the spot improvements involve. Ms. Humphris stated that a major improvement will be at the intersection of Hydraulic and Georgetown Roads, although some minor ones have already been done there. VDoT officials are considering a safety hour for pedestrians to cross the street, as well as other spot improvements. She explained that the desire is to make Georgetown Road safe for the neighbors who live there. Mr. Bowerman inquired if a four lane highway is not desirable. Ms. Humphris answered that it will definitely not be a four lane highway. It is not fair to the residents of the neighborhood to make them bear the brunt of the traffic when they were encouraged to live in a high density neighborhood. Ms. Thomas noted that they are all renters. Ms. White explained that there was no funding shown for these improvements from the County because there was money from VDoT to help improve the Georgetown Road sidewalk. Any contribution from the County could be funded from other monies. Mr. Bowerman suggested that perhaps there should be an explanation to this effect in the CIP. Ms. Humphris stated that it doesn't help to have a zero shown for this project in all the years of the CIP. This makes it appear that the County does not care to do anything about the project, and it will be hard to explain to the public. Ms. White commented that VDoT's funding will be used for these improvements, and that is why zero funding is shown locally. Ms. Humphris emphasized, though, that the County is going to have to help with some of the funding. She is concerned about the coordination for the project, because the County and VDoT need to work together. She stated that it will be hard to explain to the residents along Georgetown Road if the County is showing something in its CIP that is different from VDoT's plan. Ms. White responded that the County will be in a position to show some funding for the project when VDoT makes it known when the project will actually be done. Ms. Thomas wondered why there is not some funding in the Tourism budget for the project at Walnut Creek Park. There is a growing discontent from the people in that community because the project has not gotten any attention, and each year it has been postponed. She is glad it is listed under the 1999 CIP projects, and if there is any way to help with this project, it would be appreciated. Mr. Bowerman agreed that Tourism funds could be considered, because it brings in some out-of-County activities. Ms. Thomas pointed out that the mountain bike trail brings in a lot of people. Ms. White finished her presentation by noting the summary showing the total of the1999-2000 CIP at $7,651,000, the 2001-2004 fiscal yea rs at a total of $74,512,000 and the total of $82,162,000 for th e March 17, 1999 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 15) 000045 whole five years. She discussed the proposed revenues of $2,869,000 in local money with the Tourism fund contributing $55,000. The state's contribution is $425,000, and General Government's borrowed money is shown at $1,465,725 which is the funding for the Juvenile Detention Facility. She noted that the VPSA funds total $2,836,000. She next discussed the proposed funding strategies for the five year CIP which involves re-allocating $4,200,000 in school maintenance and repair funds to the school system's Debt Service to fund the $40,900,000 in proposed VPSA bonds. In order to fund the general government projects, approximately $21,100,000 was borrowed. She explained that the Court Complex, the Public Safety Facility and the Urban Gym are included in the CIP and are being funded with borrowed money which total the $21,100,000. She noted, though, that this may or may not be the amount of the referendum. She went on to say that there is $18,700,000 in general government and school projects which are being funded outright with local revenues and state funds. Ms. Thomas inquired as to how the amount of $1,465,725 will be used. Ms. White answered that this amount of money is to be used for the Juvenile Detention Facility. Ms. Thomas next asked the source from which the money will be borrowed. Ms. White replied that the money will be borrowed by the Commission and it does not have to be part of the bond referendum. She then showed a slide with the summary breakdown to show the increases in the local dollars that are being spent. The capital transfer is increasing by $146,000 and Debt Service is increasing by $891,000. This was planned for this year's CIP because last year the additional costs of the CIP were not funded, since it was level funded. There was an additional $300,000 in Debt Service for schools and $600,000 as a transfer to maintenance repair. She stated that now all the money is in the school system's Debt Service so that is why there is a significant increase of $891,000. Next year the Debt Service Reserve Fund is shown with the additional $200,000. In new revenues, the County is contributing $1,200,000 in the CIP. There were no other questions from Board members. Mr. Martin remarked that the Supervisors needed to prepare themselves for the next budget work session, There will be a small list of things from general government the Supervisors have added, and they will have the school deficit of approximately $900,000 with which to deal, as well as the various reserve funds. He added that Ken Ackerman will be present to discuss the Head Start funding request, and there will be someone present to talk about the Gypsy Moth situation. Mr. Bowerman inquired if the General Fund Balance of June 30 will be available again. Mr. Tucker answered affirmatively. Although, he is unsure of the amount at this time. Mr. Bowerman commented that over the course of the next year the General Fund Balance will probably increase, and he wondered if there will be some idea of an amount of money to be used by the Supervisors in their discussion at the next work session. Mr. Tucker replied that the staff will try to give the Board a figure with which to work, although it will not be a certainty at that time. Mr. Marshall mentioned his concerns that there will be a substantial increase in energy costs next year. Mr. Tucker responded that there should be some additional revenue to handle those items which have not been funded, such as the DISC recommendations and the reversion issue. Mr. Bowerman asked when a decision will be made on the reversion issue. Mr. Davis answered that it will be argued in front of the Supreme Court during the second week of April and a decision will probably be reached in July. Mr. Martin suggested that a list of reserves be given to the Board. The Board of Supervisors can then decide what to do about the school system's deficit. Mr. Tucker said this is what the staff had to do. Mr. Marshall asked about the carry-over funds. Mr. Tucker said they are approximately $150,000. Agenda Item No. 3. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. At 4:05 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Perkins, seconded by Ms. Humphris, that the Board go into Executive Session pursuant to Section 2.1-344(A) of the Code of Virginia under Subsection (7) to discuss a matter of probable litigation. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Ms. Humphris. NAYS: None. At 4:20 p.m., the Board reconvened into open session. Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Ms. Humphris, that the Board certify by a recorded vote that to the best of each Board member's knowledge only public business matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identified in the motion authorizing the executive session were heard, discussed or considered in the executive session. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: M,~ (P~ AY N,~ Ma ' NA' Approved by B ,ard Date Initials March 17, 1999 (Adjourned Meeting) 16) 000046 Agenda Item No. 4. Adjourn to March 22, 1999, 1:00 p.m. Motion was then offered by Ms. Humphris, seconded by Ms. Thomas, to adjourn to 22, 1999, 1:00 p.m. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Ms. Humphris. None. ~f~airman Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Ms. Humphris. None.