1998-03-23 adjMarch 23, 1998 (Afternoon)
(Page 1)
00Oil9
An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on March 23, 1998, at 1:00 p.m., Room 241, County Office
Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. This meeting was
adjourned from March 18, 1998.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Ms. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr.
Forrest R. Marshall, Jr., Mr. Charles S. Martin, 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 1:00 p.m. by the
Chairman, Mr. Marshall.
Agenda Item No. 2. BUDGET WORK SESSION: FY 1998-99 COUNTY OPERATING
BUDGET: Review and Discussion by Board regarding Issues/Funding Priorities.
Mr. Marshall asked Mr. Tucker how the Board should proceed with this
work session. Mr. Tucker suggested the Board go through the entire packet of
materials handed out for this meeting. The first item mentioned was the
following chart:
COUNTY GENERAL FUND:
Beginning Reserves $388,971
County Executive Adjustments:
Less Juvenile Detention Home Reduction $(5,099)
Plus Jail - Per Diem Increase 3,883
Less JAUNT Night & Weekend Service Reduction (638)
Less VRS Life Rate Reduction (0.72% to 0%) - Life Insurance "Holiday" (98,946)
Less Miscellaneous Salary Adjustment (21,402) $t 22,202
Plus Resource Changes:
Additional Scottsville Reimbursement - Salary Adjustment $490
Additional E-911 Revenues - Planning (to offset Operations) 2,272
Additional Compensation Board Reimbursement- Salary Adjustment 8,826 $11,588
Net Ending Reserves $522,761
Board of Supervisors' Funding Initiatives for Discussion Cost Amount
Judicial:
Parity/Pay Plan Implementation - Commonwealth's Attorney $38,960
Parity/Pay Plan Implementation - Sheriff 35,642
Public Safety:
Fire/Rescue Education/Training Specialist ($15,269 Jan Hire) $30,538 $30,538
Parks, Recreation & Culture:
Virginia Festival of the Book (funded through Tourism Fund) $10,000 $0
Community Development:
1.0 FTE Engineering Inspector -Soil Erosion ($24,443 Jan Hire) $44,355
Albemarle Housing Initiatives Trust Funds - Additional Funds $25,000 25,000
Piedmont Housing Alliance -Additional Funds 10,000 10,000
ClP/Debt Service Transfer:
Additional Funding for School Debt Service $300,000
Additional School Instructional Technology Projects 150,000
County Computer Upgrade 25,000
COB Maintenance & Repair Projects 18,023
Courthouse M&R (Deferred to FY 2000) 10,000
Sidewalk Construction Fund 21,077
County Athletic Field Improvements (Deferred to FY 2000) 25,000
Revenue Sharing Road Project Funding 120,000
Chris Greene Lake Property Purchase (Deferred to FY 2000) 113,400
Walnut Creek Park Improvement Funds (Deferred to FY 2000) 24,500
Additional Funds to Other Projects 70,000
Subtotal CIP/Debt Service $877,000 $0
Total Board of Supervisors' Initiatives -General Government $952,538 $184,395
Re~a!6i"gB°~rd ~SU~rVis~'rs;~es~~'' : :. ':= I : I $338!266
000:1.20
March 23, 1998 (Afternoon)
(Page 2)
Mr. Tucker said there are some items which have not been listed in this
chart. There may be Comprehensive Services Act (CSA) payments due late next
year that are unknown at this time. He suggested that the Board keep a large
sum in the Reserve Fund, but said the Board, at its discretion, can change any
of the figures shown in the chart.
Ms. Thomas asked if staff is certain the County will receive the extra
funds which recently came to light. Mr. Tucker said in talking to people at
VRS, they feel the VRS payment is certain ($98,946). This has been done
previously and they have agreed to fund this VRS payment for tWo additional
years. Whether or not the State will continue to do it after that time period
is unknown. The only item the General Assembly changed that could make a
difference is the additional funds for the schools. The Governor could
potentially veto that bill, although staff is not anticipating that will
happen. No one knows what will happen until after the General Assembly
Session ends.
Mr. Tucker then referred to the following chart:
Beginning Reserves ($195,422 is One-Time) $270,422
Less Superintendent Adjustments:
VRS Life Rate Reduction (0.72% to 0% - Life Insurance "Holiday" $(321,326) 321,326
Plus Resource Changes:
Additional State Funds (Estimated to be from $130,000 to $180,000) 180,000 180,000
Net Ending Reserves $771,748
School Board Unfunded Priorities (One-Time in Bold Italics)
i *Total School One-Time is $251,407 Cost
Academic Learning Project Schools (ALPS) + Differentiated Funding $48,000
Addt'l 4.13 FTE Growth Teachers to Fully Fund Growth (19.1 of 19.1) 164,899
Additional Funds for CA TEC ($23,000 is One-Time) 53,993
Additional Funds for High School Athletics 37,072
Elementary Health Clinician Phase-in (4 hrs/day at 6 elem schools) 67,282
Elementary Task Force Subcommittee Recommended Phase-in of 2.5 FTE 99,740
Teachers for Art, Music and PE Standards
Extended School Year (Pilot Yancey Elementary) 68,874
Gifted Services Five-year Phase-in (2.6 FTE Teachers) 105,830
Partial Instructional Funding Restoration 92,800
Partial Textbook Fund Restoration 159,533
Total Board of Supervisors' Initiatives - School Division $888,023
Mr. Bowerman asked if the $270,422.00 beginning reserve balance includes
the expected savings on energy costs. Mr. Tucker said it does not. He
indicated previously that some significant savings are anticipated, but he
does not have a figure at this time.
Mr. Bowerman asked if that figure includes the School's hold-back of
funds. Mr. Tucker said it includes $195,422.00 of one-time money and
$75,000.00 of recurring funds. He assumes the hold-back is included in that
figure as well.
Mr. Bowerman asked the hold-back amount. Mr. Frank Morgan, Assistant
Superintendent for Support Services, said in this budget there is $680,000.00
of non-recurring money that the Schools are using to fund the budget. That
amount was carried over from the previous year and includes the hold-back of
funds never released to the individual schools. In terms of non-recurring
money, if it is used for recurring expenditures, the Schools start that much
behind the next year. In terms of carry-over funds from the current year's
budget, the savings in energy costs mentioned by Mr. Tucker should be
available in the Spring, and can be used for funding the 1998-99 budget.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the Schools have hold-back funds which have not
been identified on this chart. Mr. Morgan said there is about $350,000.00 of
the hold-back in the current year still in effect. Mr. Bowerman asked if it
is proposed to use these funds for one-time costs. Mr. Morgan said it is
hoped that some of those funds will be given back to the schools because this
hold-back has occurred the last two years. It is hoped that any carry-over
from the current year can be used next year as the 1999-2000 budget is started
to counterbalance some of the non-recurring funds being used this year.
March 23, 1998 (Afternoon)
(Page 3)
Mr. Bowerman asked if $250,000.00 is a low estimate of the energy
savings, and the $350,000 is actually $600,000.00 which currently is not
identified anywhere. Mr. Tucker said that is correct.
Ms. Thomas asked if it would be appropriate to use those funds for
things like the Textbook Fund which is a one-time cost. Mr. Tucker said
"yes." He said the Schools total reserve is now at $771,748.00. Then, on
their Unfunded Priority List, one-time expenses amount to $251,407.00 which is
within their one-time reserve, their hold-back of funds, or their savings on
energy. Staff believes the Schools can fully fund their one-time expenses
with savings in the current year. They have a shortfall at this time of
$116,275.00.
Ms. Thomas asked if that is after spending the $771,748.00. Mr. Tucker
said that is correct. If the savings in energy costs is added, that figure
would turn into a positive figure.
Ms. Thomas said the Schools have fewer one-time expenditures than they
will have in one-time revenues. Mr. Tucker said that is correct.
Ms. Thomas said when one gets to the revised shortfall of $116,275.00,
that shouldn't be covered with one-time funds. Mr. Tucker said that is
correct.
Ms. Thomas said the $600,000.00 is in one-time funds so that is not a
good way to cover $116,275.00, but it is Mr. Tucker's suggestion that they do
that. Mr. Tucker said they can cover those one-time expenses with savings
that have not been identified as part of these services.
Ms. Thomas said at the top of the chart it shows $195,422.00 as one-time
revenues. The figure at the bottom shows the School's one-time expenses as
$251,407.00. That only leaves $55,000.00 which is not covered, and then there
is the $600,000.00 which more than covers that amount. Even if that is all
covered, there still is a shortfall in recurring costs. Mr. Tucker said if
this Board wanted to fully fund the School budget with recurring money on
recurring costs, the Board would have to dip into its Reserve Fund. What
staff attempted to do was use the Schools total reserves and the additional
funds from the State to show what their total reserve is, and the bottom line
of their priority list if those reserves are used. Staff could take the list
and try to show true one-time costs and true recurring costs and break out the
revenues that are recurring and non-recurring and give the Board a different
bottom line figure.
Mr. Marshall said if one went through the budget, other one-time
expenditures could be found which are not being shown to the Board today.
Some of this money could be put toward some of those one-time expenses. Mr.
Tucker said that is another way to try and apply some of the one-time moneys.
Ms. Thomas said it would be ideal to find out how many items in the
Schools budget are appropriately supported by one-time money. Mr. Tucker said
a lot of items in their budget are funded as one-time expenses already. Mr.
Jackson Zimmerman said approximately $875,000.00 in one-time money is being
utilized in the School budget as presented to the Supervisors. The Schools do
not have $875,000.00 in one-time expenses.
Mr. Martin said it would be ideal if there were time for the School
Board to get together and determine what to do with the additional State
funding. Mr. Tucker said he thinks they would want to fund the ~Unfunded
Priorities" shown in the chart.
Dr. Kevin Castner, Division Superintendent, said he agrees that the
money might be saved because of the mild winter and that money could be
carried over. He does not feel comfortable including the hold-back funds in
that mix. He said seven percent of the schools money is held back each year
in anticipation of emergencies. Last year, all of the seven percent was not
returned. Over the last four or five years, the school-based budgets have
been level-funded. He does not want that hold-back to become a part of the
carry-over again. This year when revenue projections were received, they were
told that $1.08 million had to be made up out of last year's budget. They had
to make some changes in technology, in capital improvements, and things to do
with energy. Hopefully, that will generate some money for the carry-over.
The hold-back area is one he is sensitive to just to maintain or continue
whatever their present effort is. He thinks all are pleased to have the
March 23, 1998 (Afternoon)
(Page 4)
000:1.22
positive information they received last Friday, particularly with the VRS Life
Insurance payment.
Mr. Tucker said the next item concerns VRS. There were questions raised
as to whether the County could fund VRS payments by having the employees
contribute. Ms. White has put together a chart which identifies the issues
and how difficult it would be to go back to the format the County had prior to
1980. Mr. Bob Brandenburger did the research and Ms. White will make the
presentation.
Ms. White said participation of state agencies and public school boards
in the Virginia Retirement System (VRS) is mandatory; the election by a
political subdivision to participate in VRS is irrevocable; an employer may
elect to pay the member's five percent contribution for all of its current
members; if the employer makes such an election, it is irrevocable; by State
Code an employee is not allowed to contribute to the employer's share of VRS;
the only way to change the current VRS policy would be for the General
Assembly to make amendments to the State Code. As regards teachers, the State
pays the employer's share for teachers; the State reimbursement is calculated
only on the Standards of Quality (SOQ) teachers, not on all teachers; for FY
1998-99, the State will reimburse the School Division approximately
$184,000.00 of the mandated $474,000.00 increase; the ratio of the
State/County share of the increase is approximately 39 percent/61 percent.
Mr. Perkins asked how long it takes for an employee to be vested under
VRS. Whose money is it once it goes into the system? Ms. White said the
employee's share is refunded if the employee leaves County employ before they
vest, which is five years. They do not get the employer's share unless they
retire. This has not been an issue which has been addressed before. The
State is picking up a share of some of the increases, but not for all of the
teachers.
Mr. Tucker noted that the next chart contains the Performance Pool
costs. The Board had asked staff to show the savings on one-tenth of a
percent reduction in the merit pool. That has been done. Staff also gave the
full costs for the compression issue as proposed. Mr. Tucker recommended that
the Board fund at least 33 percent of compression in this budget, phasing the
remaining 67 percent in over three years. If the Board were to choose to use
some of its Reserve Fund and fund up to 40 percent, the full costs are shown.
Mr. Tucker said Mr. Huff will present the requests from the
Commonwealth's Attorney and the Sheriff.
Mr. Huff said staff found real issues which will need to be answered
should the Board consider granting either of these requests. First, there are
differences in the requests. The Commonwealth's Attorney requested that he be
included and placed on the County's pay plan, whereas the Sheriff did not make
that same request. In a performance-based system, it raises the question of
who would perform their personnel performance reviews annually. The
Commonwealth's Attorney requested that his attorneys and the legal services
assistant be included on the County's pay plan. The Sheriff requested that
his entire department staff be included. The Commonwealth's Attorney
requested that the salaries of the attorneys and legal services assistant be
identical to specific individuals in the County Attorney's Office based on
factors not utilized in the County's pay plan, such as the year admitted to
the Virginia Bar or the year the person began employment with the County. The
Sheriff asked that salaries for his personnel be matched with those of
personnel in the Police Department, grade for grade. Mr. Hendricks,
consultant for the pay plan, had recommended one pay range lower for a field
deputy, with a difference in salary for~the sergeant, lieutenant and captain
level.
Mr. Huff said it is difficult to match the Sheriff's employees to any
kind of a pay plan until there is an understanding of what ranks would be
approved. Under the current structure in the Sheriff's Department, there are
six supervisory positions for ten deputies, plus his auxiliary force. In the
Police Department, two positions at the captain level would not be funded for
just ten deputies and the auxiliary force. There are issues such as who would
address grievances, future promotions and hirings. Those issues could be
addressed through a memorandum of understanding. Staff has seen such a
document which is in effect in Spotsytvania. It would only be binding on the
current constitutional officer.
Mr. Huff said neither the Clerk of the Circuit Court nor the Registrar
are included in this request. The Registrar's staff is already on the
March 23, 1998 (Afternoon)
(Page 5)
000128
County's pay plan because the State does not pay those salaries. The
Registrar is currently receiving a fixed stipend from the County. There are
two sheriff deputies in Scottsville, one of which carries the rank of
sergeant, but who is being paid as a regular deputy sheriff. To put this
position on the pay plan would require a substantial increase because he is at
the bottom of the range.
Mr. Huff said staff calculated different options and scenarios, as many
as 30 different options depending on how the options are answered.
Option 1.
Retain the current system of base Compensation Board pay
plus local stipends. There would be no additional costs for
this option.
Option 2.
If the Board chose to place the salaries of the Commonwealth
Attorney's staff on the County's pay range, Mr. Hendricks
could be asked to identify the appropriate pay grade for
these employees, as was done for the Sheriff's Office last
year.
Option 3.
The salaries of these persons could be put into an
appropriate range but these positions not be placed on the
pay plan, i.e., they would have no access to the performance
pool. The estimated cost of this option is about $2360.00
net of $3872.00 in additional Scottsville reimbursement.
Mr. Huff said prior actions of this Board have brought the salaries of
these persons up to the minimum. The bulk of that $2360.00 is actually for
one employee hired last year below the minimum after this Board took action.
This option would cost Scottsville $3872.00 because of the two employees
there.
Option
Place these positions on at least the minimum appropriate
range and allow access to the County's pay plan. The
estimated cost is $31,515.00, net of $6281.00 in additional
Scottsville reilmbursement.
Mr. Huff said this option does not take into account that there might be
a deputy with many years of service whose salary is at the minimum range.
This would bring into play the compression issue.
Option 5.
Could decompress an appropriate range and either allow
access to the pay plan or not. The estimated cost of
decompression with no access to the performance pool is
estimated at $67,766.00, net of $12,943.00 in additional
funds from Scottsville. The estimated cost of decompression
with pay plan inclusion is estimated at a cost of $96,921.00
net of $15,532.00 in additional funds from Scottsville.
Mr. Huff said the same decompression formula being used for other
employees could be used to see where these positions would go on the range. It
yields the greatest need for funds from the town of Scottsville for those two
deputies. He is not saying the Scottsville issue should drive this decision,
but it could affect how they choose to do business because they have an
officer being paid as a deputy, who they consider a sergeant.
Option 6. Develop another alternative.
Option 7.
Meet budget requests. Estim&ted cost of $74,602.00 net of
$12,446.00 in additional Scottsville reimbursement.
Ms. Thomas asked if Option 3 would work for both the Commonwealth
Attorney's Office and the Sheriff. Mr. Huff said that is correct. There are
only three employees involved whose salaries are not at the minimum. This
assumes that the Sheriff would go on the Hendricks recommended ranges and not
what he has requested. The Sheriff has one employee who was hired after last
July 1, and one employee who received a promotion and the salary is off by
$125.00.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Huff to discuss Option 7. He asked if this
relates to the amounts shown in the first chart under "Funding Initiatives."
Mr. Huff said it reflects two different things in each office. In the
Commonwealth Attorney's office that amount reflects matching just the
March 23, 1998 (Afternoon) 000124
(Page 6)
attorneys and the legal services assistan~ directly to specific positions in
the County Attorney's Office based on the year they were admitted to the Bar.
The funding for the Sheriff's Office matches positions to actual ranges in the
Police Department because that is what the Sheriff requested. It just makes
sure the people in those positions are at the minimum of the range. It does
not address where they are in the range.
Mr. Bowerman said those salaries would not be decompressed if the Board
approves that option. Mr. Huff said that is correct. Mr. Bowerman said if
they were part of this amount it would add a little to the amounts the Board
discussed before. Mr. Huff said it would be a fairly large amount. The
Sheriff has deputies with quite a few years of service who would be close to
the bottom of the range if placed on either range.
Mr. Bowerman asked if it would cost about $20,000.00 additional to
decompress salaries in the Sheriff's Department. Mr. Huff said decompression
in both offices is the $67,766.00 shown under Option 5. Mr. Tucker said those
employees would have no access to the performance pool.
Mr. Bowerman said if the Board agreed to the Sheriff's suggestion, that
would cost $35,642.00. If the salaries were then decompressed, what would it
cost? Mr. Huff said he did not have that figure today. Staff did not assume
that these positions would be placed on the Police Department scale, which the
Sheriff did assume. Staff did not make that assumption because of Mr.
Hendricks' recommendation which this Board adopted when the stipends were
approved earlier.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the figure would then be higher than the
$96,921.00 noted in Option 5. Mr. Huff said the difference between the
$67,766.00 and the $96,921.00 is the three-percent merit pool in the current
budget. He said there are numerous possibilities and options. Staff decided
it needed direction from the Board before making any further calculations.
Mr. Bowerman said the decompression costs could be twice as expensive as
simply bringing these positions onto the pay scale as the Sheriff requested.
Mr. Huff said that is correct.
Mr. Marshall asked to look at the Scottsville costs. He said the Town
would have to raise an additional $15,352.00 under Option 5. He asked why
there has to be a sergeant in the town. There used to be a town sergeant, but
that was different from having a deputy doing law enforcement. He asked if
the town promoted the deputy to a sergeant. Mr. Huff said the Sheriff
promoted this person at the request of the Scottsville Council. This person
carries supervisory responsibilities over the other deputy. He said the
County had nothing to do with that decision. Both people are classified as
deputy sheriffs by the State and are receiving a County stipend.
Mr. Marshall asked if Scottsville Council is aware they might have to
pay these additional funds. Mr. Huff said he has not discussed it with them.
Mr. Tucker said this would be a change in policy which the Board of
Supervisors would have to approve. Staff did not want to get the Town Council
concerned when it did not know what the Board would do. Mr. Huff said the
Board had asked for comparative data from other jurisdictions. Sheriff
Hawkins sent something to the Board members over the weekend showing data for
other sheriff's offices. Mr. Camblos identified 30 other jurisdictions,
cities and counties, who are in one way or another supplementing their
commonwealth attorney's offices. There is a large, varying mix of
supplements, just about any scenario that can be derived.
Mr. Tucker said this concluded the staff's presentation today. The
Board may want to go back to the first chart and make decisions item by item.
Mr. Marshall suggested that the Board start with the ending Reserve Fund
of $522,761.00, and go through the list item by item. Ms. Humphris said she
did not feel ready to do that yet. She needs from Mr. Tucker a better idea
about the School Division's budget. Although their revised shortfall is
shown, she said the Board has not dealt with other large sums of money which
she understands they would like to keep. She thinks those sums need to show
somewhere in print so the Board will know exactly what they have to spend in
which category. If the Board does not have that information, she does not
have a good idea of how much money she would be in favor of adding to the
Schools budget. Leaving out the energy savings, which is just a guess at this
time, is a significant number. Leaving out the hold-back, which has not been
March 23, 1998 (Afternoon)
(Page 7)
000 .25
identified yet, is a significant number. She thinks the Board has the right
to know a little more surely how those amounts will affect unfunded
priorities.
Ms. Thomas said she would like to understand a little more about the
current year's hold-back. She thought that when the Board and School Board
put together a budget last year, it had "x" amount of money, and each school
got a budgeted amount to spend, and each division also if it was not a school.
Then, at the beginning of the year they are told that they got that budgeted
amount minus seven percent, and that is what created the hold-back. When the
budget was laid out, this Board, the School Board and the schools expected
they would get the full "x" not "x - 7%". History shows that for the last few
years what they have gotten is the "x - 7%". Now, most of the way through the
school year, that budget will never be met. The Board could say they can't
use that seven percent this year, but has to use it next year because that is
the $350,000.00. If this Board says that has to be used to meet next year's
needs, it is just making permanent the seven percent holdback. She asked if
this was brought into this discussion with some reluctance because it was a
budgeted figure which was held back in case there was an emergency and the
emergency was that the County got $1.8 million less than expected. The
Schools didn't use that seven percent to meet that need, and it is still held
back.
Mr. Zimmerman said only five and one-half percent is currently being
held back. Ms. Thomas asked if that is the $350,000.00 figure. Mr. Zimmerman
said the seven percent hold-back was instituted in the past after a
significant State revenue shortfall. The School Division had to cut, in March
of that year, many hundreds of thousands of dollars and it was an extremely
difficult process which resulted in risks and substantial reductions. At that
time, the School Board adopted a policy of holding back seven and one-half
percent of operational funds for departments and schools. The idea was to
hold that amount in reserve until there was certainty about State revenues.
It also allowed the opportunity to get some savings should there be a
substantial cut from the local side. Last year was the first time any of that
reserve was held back for the entire year. Last year two and one-half percent
was held back because they were not sure they could meet their "lapse factor"
which is something that is not budgeted. They project the turnover in staff
and how much will be saved from that turnover. Last year they were concerned
they might not have the level of turnover projected. Typically, at this time
of the year, with each new revenue and expenditure report submitted to the
School Board, staff has a recommendation as to how much of the seven and one-
half percent holdback to release. The individual schools themselves make up
about 50 percent of that hold-back.
Ms. Thomas asked if the Schools permanently held back two and one-half
percent last year that was carried over. Mr. Zimmerman said that is correct.
In budgeting strategy this year, they planned on using a significant portion
of one-time money. They needed a significant amount of carry-over funds for
the 1998-99 budget, so they planned for that.
Ms. Thomas asked if part of that money was used to help with the
shortfall this year. Mr. Zimmerman said they are currently using $680,000.00
of the carry-over in the existing budget.
Ms. Thomas asked what happened to the two and one-half percent held back
from the year before. Mr. Zimmerman said it is part of the $680,000.00
carried over.
Ms. Thomas said the schools are down to five and one-half percent in the
hold-back. If they do the same thing they did last year, they would continue
holding back about one-half of that amount. If this Board suggested that some
portion of that $350,000.00 be used in next year's budget, it would be doing
the same thing as the School Division did this year to itself. Mr. Zimmerman
said with the exception that they would be utilizing an extremely large amount
of one-time money to fund an extremely large number of recurring expenses.
They would start out the 1999-2000 fiscal year with close to $1.0 million of
one-time moneys and not have anywhere near $1.0 million in one-time expenses.
Ms. Thomas said that is a separate issue in her mind from whether the
hold-back is fair game. Mr. Zimmerman said there would be some significant
difficulties. This would be a real reduction in both schools and department
budgets not even counting inflation. The individual schools and.departments
have only received a two percent increase over the past five years. They were
March 23, 1998 (AfternoOn) 0001Z6
(Page 8)
held back two and one-half percent last year, and if they were held back some
portion this year, that would be a significant reduction.
Ms. Thomas said there is that issue. Then there is a separate issue of
having so much one-time money that there could be $1.0 million in one-time
dollars for much less in one-time expenditures that would hit this Board when
the budget is presented for the next year. It would look like new
expenditures but be, in fact, just on-going costs that were paid for with one-
time dollars which won't be available again next year. Mr. Zimmerman said it
would hit the School Division extremely hard. If it utilized savings from the
current year to fund next year's budget, it would mean that there would be
almost no carry-over to use for the 1999-2000 budget.
Mr. Martin asked what Mr. Zimmerman is suggesting doing with the
$350,000.00 during the current year, or at least a large portion of it. He
does not want to commit it to next year at this point. Mr. Zimmerman said it
would probably be staff's recommendation to the School Board to release
portions of that money as additional information comes in during the current
year regarding revenue streams and expenditures.
Mr. Martin said he remembers a time when the Board of Supervisors took
back all of the carry-over and then decided whether to allow the Schools to
keep it or keep it themselves. One thing this Board did was to change that
policy to get away from "let's spend it before we lose it" thinking. He does
not think most Board members expected to run into a situation where the School
System constantly carries over funds and counts on it in the next year's
budget. That was not the anticipation. The anticipation was that sometimes
there would be carry-over and sometimes there would be left-over funds which
could be carried over. He does not think it was envisioned that you would
always plan for it to carry over.
Dr. Castner said $680,000.00 is a lot larger than the normal carry-over
they have. They tried to use some fiscal accountability. They did not return
back the two and one-half percent. When you look at a $70.0 million budget,
and you look at a carry-over of $0.25 million, you are dealing with a small
percentage. Some schools do hold funds back to buy some small items. They do
some good planning on their own. He agrees the number is larger than in the
past. It is not the way the Schools want to do business. If they get into
using a lot of the one-time money, it forces them into this cycle. He does
not disagree with what Mr. Martin said, but he wanted to say this was a
deliberate attempt to do what the Supervisors wanted done to solve some of
their problems internally.
Mr. Martin said he understands it is a large amount because they tried
to be fiscally responsible. He does not disagree, but he does not think it
would be wise to continue in this way. Dr. Castner agreed.
Ms. Humphris asked Mr. Tucker if he is recommending that the Board
proceed with the revised shortfall for the School Division and leave it up to
the School System to deal with those other funds. Mr. Tucker said based on
what the Board members have said, staff did some quick math and tried to
separate the one-time moneys from the recurring revenues, and the outcome is:
Take the beginning reserves of $270,422.00 and of that amount $75,000.00 are
recurring funds. Add the $321,326.00 as recurring revenue, and the
$180,000.00 as recurring revenue, so the total of those recurring revenues is
$576,326.00. Under the Unfunded Priorities, he started with the figures of
$888,023.00, subtracted $251,407.00 in one-time costs, leaving an amount of
recurring programs of $636,616.00. Subtract the recurring revenues of
$576,326.00, leaving a shortfall of $60,290.00. They assumed the $251,407.00
in one-time costs can be covered by the fuel savings for the remainder of this
year. That savings has been estimated at between $250,000.00 and $400,000.00.
Ms. Thomas said that does not take into account that there are already
$875,000.00 in one-time funds being used in the budget which is not being
shown to the Board today. Mr. Tucker said the School Board recommended the
budget to the Board in that way.
Mr. Marshall said the shortfall is then $60,290.00 instead of the
$116,275.00. Mr. Tucker said that is correct.
Ms. Thomas said the Board is creating a budget with over $1.0 million in
one-time funds being used mostly for operating expenditures. That is sort of
like the CIP the Board has put off for one year. It will just hit the County
March 23, 1998 (Afternoon)
(Page 9)
harder next year and the Board will either get angry at the School System, or
remember that this was built in this year. Mr. Bowerman said that assumes the
Board accepts all the budget recommendations up to this point in terms of on-
going costs.
Mr. Marshall asked if the Board members would like to start making final
decisions by discussing the Funding Initiatives, the first item being the pay
plan implementation for the Commonwealth's Attorney and the Sheriff. Mr.
Bowerman said he did not believe the Board could compartmentalize this
discussion. He said the Board has received a sheet of information on the
performance pool costs. Assuming the Board funds the three percent, it is
exactly as Ms. Thomas has laid it out. If the Board funds less than three
percent, the figures for both General Government and the Schools change.
While that is going on, he agrees the Board has to pick some finite point to
work against, but, there are a couple of things affecting one another. Ms.
Thomas talked about the almost $1.0 million of nonrecurring operating costs
being funded. He thinks there is a mechanism to lower some of the operating
costs if the Board chooses to do that.
Ms. Thomas asked if Mr. Bowerman would like to deal with that question
first. Mr. Marshall asked if Mr. Bowerman wanted to deal with the performance
pool costs. Mr. Bowerman said these costs drive a lot of it. For every one-
tenth of a percent the performance pool is decreased, it frees up money. The
Schools put together their budget based on the three percent dictated by this
Board. If the Board begins to work with that number, they have more operating
funds they can redirect. He asked if there are any additional costs on top of
these savings like not paying VRS costs. It is a small percentage, but it is
13 percent of the payroll. Mr. Tucker said staff had not make that
calculation, but it could be some small amount. Mr. Bowerman said if the
Board saved $300,000.00, it could be another $30,000.00 in lower VRS costs.
Mr. Marshall said he needs to know where to start. Mr. Bowerman said he
thinks the big issue is the performance pool. Until the Board looks at that
and tries to come to some consensus, the Board is "spinning its wheels." Mr.
Marshall agreed. He asked if the Board members would like to deal with the
performance pool first. All agreed.
Mr. Marshall asked for a suggestion as to the amount of the increase.
Mr. Bowerman said as a policy discussion the Board needs to go back to what it
is trying to accomplish with the merit pool and the benefits program. It is
to recognize on the one hand that the Board has a responsibility to meet some
of the costs in the increase in the cost-of-living. The Board does pay a
substantial share (95 percent) of health care costs. That was a big increase
this year from $2000.00 to $2400.00 on the average. That is a significant
increase. What the Board is trying to do with the merit pool is to reward
better than average performance. Some people will get more than three percent
and some will get less than three percent. It is fortunate that there is a
fairly low CPI this year. It has been fairly low for a number of years, but
this year it is lower than in the past, just over two percent. In all
likelihood, it will be an even smaller number next year. In the face of that,
he would find it difficult giving the three percent on top of the benefits
increase when there is a CPI that has not gone up that much. Philosophically,
he has a difficult time with that. As a matter of fact, the number he thought
the Board entered the process with was two and one-half percent which was
closer to the CPI than three percent. He thinks the original number was
flawed. He is looking at two and one-half percent as the amount for the merit
pool along with the benefits increase, which is somewhere between a three and
one-half and four percent increase in salary and benefit costs for this year.
If the Board had started with two and one-half percent, this discussion would
not be necessary.
Mr. Perkins asked if that is Mr. Bowerman's recommendation.
Mr. Martin asked if Mr. Bowerman is suggesting that the Board start with
two and one-half percent which on the School side would free up $240,000.00
which could be used for operating expenses. Mr. Bowerman said "yes" for this
year, next year and forever.
Ms. Thomas said she did not do any extra research on this, but since
staff did bring to the Board the three percent figure, and that is very
comparable to what is happening in surrounding counties, she thinks it is fair
to ask staff to discuss the three percent. Why was that amount recommended?
Mr. Tucker said he and Dr. Castner discussed this with their respective staffs
March 23, 1998 (Afternoon)
(Page 10)
O00:I. Z8
who started with two and one-half percent but then learned that some
localities were looking at four percent and higher. There was a general
consensus that perhaps the three percent would be a better match. It is still
lower than what they found localities in the Valley and surrounding Albemarle
were proposing. Most are proposing two-plus-two which means they are doing a
two percent COLA and a two percent merit. That was the basis of the
presentation made to this Board last month.
Mr. Marshall asked if that recommendation was based on the benefits
package that Albemarle provides. He said it certainly makes a difference.
Mr. Tucker said it really does not make a big difference. Most other
localities now have similar benefits packages. Staff was strictly looking at
salaries, and did not compare benefit packages. The Board had asked Mr.
Hendricks to compare Albemarle's benefit package to other localities, as well
as some of the major industries in the area. Albemarle does compare favorably
with regard to its benefit package with some of the major industries in the
community.
Dr. Castner said he and Mr. Tucker started with a two and one-half
percent number. He surveyed localities in the surrounding area and heard
significant numbers above that two and one-half percent. He pointed out that
this affects teachers more than it does the general merit pool. In the last
three years, transitions have occurred where a good number of employees did
not get a cost-of-living raise. That came about because the School System had
a different type of pay scale. It had a "bubble" in the middle where some
teachers were getting paid above market, and also some teachers at the other
end were $5000.00 below market when they were nearing retirement. In a 30-
year scale, there are about seven years of teachers that are not getting cost-
of-living raises because they tried to phase them out of the ~bubble" and get
them back into the linear scale. This past year, the academic leadership
stipend model was different than the career ladder. The career ladder had
ranges which were higher. There was a group of teachers who did not get COLA
raises. In addition, for a family, some of the pass on for health care was
significant. While the single coverage was $10.00 more a month, the coverage
for a family was $165.00. Even though the School Board tried to buffer the
cost, there is only so much money in the reserve. A lot of these people did
not see the raise because of health care increases. He said they did some
things which have created a better pay structure package, so there is now
equity across every school in the system, but it did not come without a price.
Dr. Castner said they tried to be fair and hold the employees harmless,
but then there is the health care. These are the issues their people have had
to undergo in the transition. These are not issues which directly affect
County Government. He feels comfortable that when they were talking about the
three percent that he did not think it was the time for the school system, for
a group of people who are getting improvement every year, to all of a sudden
not be supported in the way of the three percent. He does agree that the
cost-of-living increase is different this year than in the past, but he is
looking at it over a three-year period. There are a significant number of
teachers who have not had the benefit of the cost-of-living adjustment because
of some system changes. To him, taking any step backward and having a
significant difference between their counterparts was not something he felt
comfortable with. The strength of the system is its employees. It does have
to deal with morale. They are going into next year, as other systems are,
going from 11 to 37 tests. They are going to ask every teacher in their
system to step up in a different way. This did not seem to be the time to
take what he felt was a step backward in relation to all of the surrounding
counties.
Mr. Bowerman said he believes the County has done a good job with the
Hendricks pay study. He does not believe the County is underpaying. He
thinks the County has fair wages and salaries in the community. This has been
a tough year. There were some significant unanticipated shocks on the revenue
front. The public did approve the meals tax. That has gotten the County out
of the jam it would have been in because of the extra $2.3 million. He is
uncomfortable that the Board has ~to eat all of this" in one year. He does
not see why there cannot be some spread to see what next year brings. There
is the possibility of doing things differently next year.
Mr. Tucker said he was trying to respond to Ms. Thomas' question and how
he and Dr. Castner, in discussions, in looking at what the other localities
were proposing, arrived at the three percent figure, knowing the County is in
the two and one-half percent range for the CPI.
March 23, 1998 (Afternoon)
(Page 11)
000129
Mr. Bowerman said he did not want the County to "chase its own tail" by
chasing other people who are chasing Albemarle. He thinks it is important to
look at the community, which is what Mr. Hendricks did, look at the private
sector and try to come up with fair salaries and pay levels which the Board
can address. The Board is also looking at the compression issue. He thinks
the Board has been fair in the way it has looked at salary increases in the
past and the way they are looking at them this year. He does not think it is
a significant hardship to look at a two and one-half percent merit, and the
benefit increases, instead of the three percent amount. There might be more
revenue next year to meet some of the other needs, but this is the year the
Board is dealing with.
Ms. Thomas asked why Mr. Bowerman referred to this as a tough year when
it looks like the Board can meet the needs that have been presented. Mr.
Bowerman said Ms. Thomas just laid it out. Mr. Perkins asked how much
struggling the Board had to do to meet that? Mr. Bowerman said Ms. Thomas had
said the Schools are using close to $1.0 million of non-recurring moneys on
operating costs. Therefore, Ms. Thomas is indicating the resources are not
available to do what should be done. He is trying to free up some funds for
operating costs. If the Board gives one-half of a percent this year, that
increase is forever. He does not think it is unreasonable to look at a four
or four and one-half percent package rather than a five or five and one-half
percent package this year.
Mr. Marshall said he agrees with Mr. Bowerman. In fact, Mr. Bowerman
knew he was going to agree with this proposal before this meeting began.
Mr. Perkins said when compensation amounts to over 80 percent of the
budget, that has to be looked at closely. He can only look at what has
happened to himself the last three or four years. He works for a very
conservative company. His increases over four years have been just a little
over ten percent. His fringe benefit package is less than that given by the
County. It is about 19 percent, and the County's is over 20 percent. Compare
that to increases over the last four years for School Division employees of
16.5 percent and almost 16 percent for General Government employees.
Compensation is where most of the money is spent, so that is what has to be
checked the closest. There have been good increases in the past. That is one
reason the Board is talking to the Commonwealth's Attorney and the Sheriff.
When he first became a Board member, policemen were being lost to the
Sheriff's Department because the Sheriff paid more. The State didn't have
increases, and the County did. He will support the two and one-half percent.
Mr. Martin said he has mixed feelings. There is a lot to be said for
covering another $241,000.00 in operating expenses. In certain situations he
would prefer more staff over more pay. He is not comfortable with not having
more input from the School Board about all issues. It is difficult for him to
look at all of this in light of the additional funding that came to light on
Friday and look at how that will be plugged into the School System, and what
is left to be funded. If at that point, there are still things on the
unfunded list that the Board needs to look at again, Mr. Bowerman's way of
doing it would free up another $240,000.00. He is not sure how to vote at
this point.
Ms. Thomas said it is true that Local Government is a people-intensive
operation. Their compensation is the largest piece of the budget. It does
behoove the Board to look at the expense carefully. Looking carefully is not
meant to be a code word for cutting down. The Board has looked carefully but
she does not think it leads to the conclusion that compensation should be cut.
Compensation is the largest item in the budget because the employees are being
paid to do the work asked of them. If it has been a tough year on the County
financially, next year it will be tougher on the employees because of what
they will be asked to do. She does not see any justification for cutting the
scale and merit pay for employees. Just because it is available does not make
it the right thing to do. She is not convinced it is the right thing to do in
terms of the comparison with neighboring jurisdictions, whether the County has
kept up with inflation in the past. The Board knows the County Executive is
very slow in adding people to the staff, so by necessity more is being
required of each employee. She does not think this is either the necessary or
the right time to reduce what has been talked about in terms of a three-
percent increase.
Mr. Bowerman said it is a reduction in an increase rather than a cut.
He said two and one-half or three percent is an arbitrary figure. There is a
March 23, 1998 (Afternoon)
(Page 12)
000'130
two- percent inflation rate, and the Board had before it a two and one-half
percent recommendation. Ms. Thomas said as an employer, just meeting
inflation is not adequate. If the County's above average employees can only
think that the inflation rate will be covered, that's not what the Board as
employer should be doing to its employees.
Mr. Bowerman said it is over four percent, which is double the rate of
inflation. Ms. Thomas said that is because of what is happening with the
benefits package. That is essentially out of the hands of the employees. The
VRS payment the County is facing is not because the employees are getting a
richer retirement package. It is because the State did not pre-fund the COLA
until they were told they had to. They didn't do what the court decided in
the Harper case (that had to do with the Federal retirees). It is actions by
VRS and the State that have gotten the County into a situation where there is
an increase in what has to come for the VRS payment. It does not rebound to
the benefit of the employees in the way of a greater benefit. It is like a
lot of other things the Board faces, When the State has a cold, it is the
Board who gets the sore throat. It doesn't materially add to what the
employee is getting. If the Board were increasing the health insurance
package, she would regard that as an increase to the employees. But, the VRS
thing is something she regards that the State and the VRS system have done.
Somebody has to pick it up. Because the County is picking it up this way, the
Board does not need to ~beat the employees over the head" with it.
Mr. Bowerman said health care benefits increases are already being
counted in the CPI. Some of the numbers are being counted twice. He is just
saying that this year the Board needs to look at doing something other than
what was recommended. The Board looks to setting aside some additional money
for operating expenses. The Board recognizes that the County has a good
payroll package and salary plan. It will be increased. Benefits have been
increased, but he does not see the need to do the three-percent versus the two
and one-half percent merit when there are obvious things to gain. He does not
see that much negative surrounding it because it is not zero, it is not a
minus. The County still has salaries growing faster than the rate of
inflation. Some people will get a seven and one-half percent merit increase
plus their benefits increase. The whole payroll package should not be out of
line, just like there should not be compression. This change would give more
flexibility to do some of the other things the Board thinks are important.
Mr. Martin said knowing where the Board members stand at this moment, he
would suggest discontinuing the conversation now. Then, as the Board
discusses some of the other items, it can think in terms of what it would do
with those items if there were additional moneys available in operating
expenses.
Mr. Marshall agreed. He knows where five supervisors stand, but he
doesn't know where the sixth one stands.
Ms. Humphris said Mr. Marshall wants to know where she stands on the
issue. She and Mr. Bowerman have talked about this, and a couple of weeks ago
she did not know where she stood. The picture has changed considerably in
that time. At first, she did not understand how the Board ended up with a
three percent merit pool instead of two and one-half percent. During
discussions she has recognized that there are good reasons for that because of
what has happened in the School Division and because of the additional
responsibility that will be put on them. She is one who realizes that
employees respond to additional dollars in their pockets. They feel rewarded
and appreciated based not on what they can see in retirement, or even in their
health benefits, but by what they can use to put food on the table, and to buy
a house, etc. What she is looking at in the Board's Reserve Fund with the
three percent merit is a balance of $338,266.00. The School Division's
revised shortfall is $60,290.00. Of the items on the list the Board will soon
be discussing, she believes that some of those items will not be funded. She
thinks the Board is in a good position to be able to pay its employees what
she believes they are worth and not fall farther behind in the market and not
have disappointed and irritated employees. She would rather that the
employees spend their time teaching and being productive for the County, like
the employees in the County Office Building and the Schools do, than go around
being angry because they feel they are not being appreciated by having the
income they believe they deserve, and which she believes they deserve. That
is where she stands at this moment. She is wondering why, given the situation
at this moment, the Board would feel the need to cut the merit pool.
000:1.3
March 23, 1998 (Afternoon)
(Page 13)
Mr. Marshall said Mr. Bowerman has expressed most of his feelings. He
has not heard anybody say anything about the private sector. He looks at this
as a two and one-half percent raise, not a one-half percent cut. His
employees would like to have that increase. A lot of other employees would
like to have the increase, particularly the benefit package that goes along
with it that a small business cannot afford. It is not that he does not want
the employees to have a three percent raise. He thinks it would be wonderful
if everybody could have it, but they can't. He will stick with what Mr.
Bowerman said with the CPI where it is and the benefit package being given.
He does not feel he can justify that expense of taxpayer's money. With that
discussion over, he believes the Board needs to discuss the rest of the budget
because it appears that the vote is split three to three.
Mr. Martin said he thinks the Board can conduct the rest of the work
session with the idea in mind that there is the possibility of either a two
and one-half percent or three percent increase. He doesn't see why the Board
needs to make a decision at this moment.
Ms. Humphris said she thinks the Board needs to go through the rest of
the list now. Mr. Martin suggested a recess.
(Note: At 2:47 p.m, the Board recessed, and reconvened at 3:05 p.m.)
Mr. Marshall said the request from the Commonwealth's Attorney for
Parity/Pay Plan Implementation is the first item on the list of funding
initiatives. Mr. Bowerman suggested the Board discuss the options. He asked
Mr. Camblos, who was present at this time, if his position was to be included
in the County's Pay Plan. Mr. Camblos replied uno."
Mr. Bowerman said in reference to the comparison of lawyers to lawyers
in two different offices, the point was made by staff that there are things
other than when one graduated from law school and passed the bar to consider.
He asked if it would be acceptable if the positions in the two offices were in
the same grade and then evaluated equally. Mr. Camblos said he sent the Board
members information he had received showing when people graduated and what
people were being paid, and those were given to show a comparison. Whatever
the rules are for the pay scale, they should apply across-the-board whether it
is a civil attorney or a criminal attorney. He does not care what the rules
are, but they should be applied equally to every employee.
Mr. Bowerman asked how this would be decided' Mr. Tucker said Staff
would first ask Mr. Hendricks to make a recommendation as was done for the
Sheriff's employees. After that, a decision would have to be made as to how
to place each employee on the Pay Plan.
Ms. Humphris said when Mr. Huff went over the various scenarios earlier,
she understood that staff had information from across the state as to how
commonwealth's attorneys are compensated as compared to county attorneys. Mr.
Huff said staff only has information from jurisdictions which give
supplements. The State pay scale for commonwealth's attorneys is below that
which is paid to most city and county attorney's offices. Staff can do some
market research. He thinks staff will find that in many jurisdictions city
and county attorneys are paid differently than commonwealth attorney's staffs.
Ms. Humphris said she needs the kind of information Mr. Hendricks would
give the Board in a study. The Board needs to address the whole issue of
being on the County Pay Plan, and how that would work. First, should the
office be on the County Pay Plan, and second, if it is, how does that work?
Then, the amounts of money are the easiest thing to deal with. Mr. Huff said
the internal equity question is the biggest question.
Ms. Thomas asked why the Board should not take Option 2 (Hendricks to do
a study) and Option 3 (place employee on appropriate range, but not on the Pay
Plan itself, no access to performance pool). Mr. Camblos said he understands
that Option 3 would only bring one of his employees up to the minimum salary.
Everybody else's salary is already over the minimum.
Ms. Thomas asked if Mr. Hendricks would not insure the range is correct.
Mr. Huff said staff assumes he would not pick a range higher than one in the
County Attorney's Office. Staff assumed there would be only one deputy
commonwealth's attorney's; it would not justify there being two deputies.
March 23, 1998 (Afternoon)
(Page 14)
Mr. Perkins asked the amount of the current local stipend. Mr. Huff
said it is six percent.
Mr. Camblos said he looked at the letters he had written to the Board
over the last three years, and he does not believe anybody could argue with
the fact that if the Board had pay scales that were based on gender or race or
religion, the Board would be in trouble. What is being discussed is a pay
scale based on whether the employee is a civil attorney or a criminal
attorney, and he does not think that is right. His is a department within
this County. They do different kinds of work, but they are still attorneys.
Mr. Martin said it is a different job description, and it is an issue of
supply and demand. How many criminal attorneys could represent the Social
Services Department, the School Board, the Board of Supervisors? He does not
believe there are more than five people in the area who would fit the job
description of a county attorney without a whole lot of training. Mr. Camblos
said he was talking about a very basic difference between civil and criminal.
He does appreciate everything the Board has done for his office since he has
been Commonwealth's Attorney. He does not care what the criteria is or how
the scale will be applied. That can be worked out.
Mr. Marshall asked if this can be a year-to-year thing, or is the Board
locked into it once it is done? Mr. Bowerman said it can only apply to the
officer during his term in office. Mr. Camblos said a number of jurisdictions
in the state do it, but it only applies while the person is in office.
Mr. Martin said he can only say good things about the Commonwealth
Attorney's Office and his staff. That is a reason he supported a stipend, but
he thinks the whole idea of putting the office on the same pay scale as the
County Attorney's Office is a "huge can of worms." It has nothing to do with
the quality of the work in the office.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the Board could expand what it does now and have
some sort of acceptable review, keep the offices separate, but recognize equal
pay for equal work and equal experience? Mr. Tucker asked if Mr. Bowerman was
suggesting a performance review, but not have the employees on the Pay Plan.
Mr. Bowerman said he meant that the stipend would be based on the review. A
study might still be needed by Mr. Hendricks. Mr. Marshall said that is more
like what he had in mind.
Mr. Martin said now the stipend increases depending on the increase for
County employees. Mr. Huff said that is not true. The stipend is based on
the State salary. The stipend is an "x" amount on top of the state salary.
The stipend is six percent in the Sheriff's Office, and two percent in the
Commonwealth Attorney's office except for some individuals who have been given
flat dollar stipend amounts.
Ms. Thomas asked if the Compensation Board is giving the same increase
that the State is giving its employees. Mr. Tucker said "yes."
Ms. Thomas said that means they will be getting a 3.67 percent increase.
She said this year Mr. Camblos would be better to take the State increase.
Mr. Camblos said he does not think so.
Ms. Thomas asked if the Board was discussing how much the County would
give in addition to what the Compensation Board grants. Mr. Tucker said ~no."
Ms. Thomas asked if the County would be returning money given by the
Compensation Board. Mr. Tucker said the revenue from the State comes to the
locality. It goes into the General Fund, and these employees get a paycheck
from the County. The Commonwealth Attorney's employees would receive whatever
the Pay Plan showed. It would not be on top of, or in lieu of, or anything of
that sort.
Mr. Bowerman said the real test would be if the State raised salaries 15
percent and that revenue went into the General Fund, and then some of that
money was redirected because that was more than the County's compensation
package. Mr. Camblos said if he had an employee whose salary was lower on the
County Plan than what the State was paying, the difference in revenue would
not come from the State. The County could not use that difference in revenue
for another employee.
March 23, 1998 (Afternoon)
(Page 15)
000 .33
Mr. Bowerman asked what benefit this would be to the County. Mr.
Camblos said he would stop coming every year and making this request. He said
someone had mentioned that salary and morale go together, and another comment
was made about being rewarded and appreciated. Just because they are ~up on
the hill" does not make his employees any different. They are just talking
about equal pay for equal work. He said if it would make the decision any
easier, the Board could leave his position out of the discussion.
Mr. Marshall asked if any Board member had a recommendation.
Ms. Humphris said Mr. Camblos makes a good case every year, but she is
still reluctant to change things. It is sort of mixing apples and oranges,
and no matter what he says about the jobs being the same, she does not think
they are exactly the same. She would like to find some option to insure that
Mr. Camblos feels his employees on the criminal side are fairly paid for what
they do so they have high morale. She is not sure they need to be on the
County's Pay Plan to do that. She would like to find a way, based on what Mr.
Hendricks might recommend, to see what should be done.
Mr. Martin said he can go along with that suggestion. One of the things
the Board has done historically for stipends is to base the stipend on the
person and not the position. Ms. Humphris said the Board felt comfortable
doing it that way, so doing it for the job and not the person would be a
distinct change.
Mr. Marshall asked if they were only talking about Option 1. Mr. Martin
said it might be better to formalize it, but that would basically say this
Board had no say over it. In the past, the Board was looking at individual
job performance, which is a little unfair because the Board did not know
anything about some of these employee's performance. Mr. Camblos asked if the
Board decided whether each individual employee is hired or is that decision
made by staff. It sounds like the Board is micro-managing his office, but not
others. Ms. Humphris said the Board can hire and fire all of these people,
but it has no control over Mr. Camblos. Mr. Camblos said if he is put on a
pay plan, the Board has financial control over him.
Mr. Bowerman suggested including funds in the budget, and not designate
at this time how any study would be implemented. After the study is received,
first get Mr. Camblos to agree to the study. It is possible the study might
show that defense lawyers are a pay scale lower than civil lawyers, or vice
versa. Until Mr. Camblos agrees to whatever the Board wants to do, it would
be pointless to continue. At that point, the Board could decide whether to do
something informally, or through a salary review without being on the Pay
Plan, or something else. The Board has already done it for the Sheriff's's
Office. Mr. Tucker asked if the Board wants to keep the amount for the
Commonwealth's Attorney and the Sheriff in its Reserve Fund until that
decision is made. Mr. Marshall said he thinks the Board is talking about
Option 7 at $74,602.00 for both the Commonwealth's Attorney and the Sheriff.
Mr. Tucker said until staff finds from Mr. Hendricks what range these
positions should be on, the figure is not important. It is more important to
just include some amount.
Ms. Humphris said the Board has not discussed the Sheriff's request yet.
Mr. Bowerman said the two requests can be separated. Ms. Humphris agreed.
She said there are different problems with each request. Mr. Perkins said
Scottsville is part of this decision also. Mr. Marshall suggested adding
$38,960.00 for the Commonwealth's Attorney back to the Reserve Fund Balance,
and then discuss the $35,642.00 for the Sheriff, as suggested under Option 7.
Mr. Bowerman asked staff for a report. Mr. Huff said Sheriff Hawkins'
request was to bring the salaries of his employees up to the minimum of the
exact range of the Police Department. Then, a captain in the Sheriff's
Department would be on the same range as a captain in the Police Department,
etc. That would be the range only, but they were not placed anywhere in that
range. If they were at the minimum of the range, the employee received no
compensation. If the employee's salary was below the minimum, that salary was
brought up to the minimum.
Ms. Thomas asked if that is Option 3. Mr. Huff said it is the same
process as Option 3. When Option 3 was costed, Mr. Hendrick's recommendation
was used, which is one grade lower for a field deputy and several grades lower
for captains, sergeants, etc.
000134
March 23, 1998 (Afternoon)
(Page 16)
Ms. Thomas asked if the discussion should be about the definition of
"appropriate range." Mr. Huff said "yes." Mr. Marshall said that will leave
Scottsville with a decision as to whether to demote their sergeant or pay the
additional amount of $3872.00. Ms. Thomas said it would not cost the County
as much as the figure shown. Mr. Huff said that is if the Board assumes the
Hendricks range for sheriff's deputies. Ms. Thomas said Mr. Hendricks is the
expert in this matter. She thought his conclusion about the range was
appropriate at the time, and she has seen no reason to change her mind.
Mr. Bowerman said there are over 80 people in the Police Department, and
there are only two captains. There are 16 deputies in the Sheriff's Office
and there are two captains. He does not think job responsibilities are
equivalent to the extent that Hendricks was able to characterize them. He
thinks that is what the Board should deal with initially. He does not think
the Board has to make both offices the same. These are policy questions, but
both offices are already being supplemented. That big hurdle has already been
dealt with. Mr. Huff asked what Mr. Bowerman is thinking about. Mr. Bowerman
asked if what everybody is trying to do is bring all the positions to the mid-
range on Hendricks recommendation. All Board members disagreed.
Ms. Thomas said Option 3 says "minimum". For compression, mid-range is
the goal.
Mr. Marshall asked if the $35,642.00 represents minimum. Mr. Huff said
that is of the Police range, not the Hendricks range. If the Board wants the
minimum of the Hendricks range, it is $2360.00.
Mr. Marshall said that would be is $2,360.00 instead of $35,642.00. Ms.
Thomas said $3872.00 would have to come from Scottsville assuming Scottsville
kept one deputy as a sergeant and one as a deputy. Mr. Huff said it also
assumes a conversation he had with Sheriff Hawkins where one of his captains
would have to be reclassified as a lieutenant. It assumes a captain, a
lieutenant, and three sergeants, ten deputies, plus the auxiliary at the
Hendricks recommended range for each of those classifications.
Ms. Thomas said the Board would actually have to add to the budget the
$2360.00 and the $3872.00, but revenues would be increased by $3872.00 from
Scottsville. Mr. Huff said $360.00 is net of Scottsville. Ms. Thomas said
$2360.00 would be coming out of the Board's Reserve funds. Mr. Huff said it
does not put the positions up into the range. It only puts them at the
minimum. Mr. Marshall asked if $2360.00 will be subtracted from the
$522,761.00, at this moment. The Board has done nothing with the $38,960.00
for the Commonwealth's Attorney except to leave it in that Reserve Fund
awaiting on the outcome of the study. Mr. Tucker said the Board can do it
that way, or identify it as an item in the Board's budget as a reserve for the
Commonwealth's Attorney parity. Mr. Marshall said it is still a reserve. The
only thing the Board has spent is the $2,360.00 at this point. Mr. Huff said
plus the $38,960.00. Mr. Bowerman and Ms. Thomas said ~yes."
Mr. Tucker suggested that the funds be kept in a separate reserve so the
bottom line figure is not affected. He said the Board needs to understand
that with the Commonwealth's Attorney the Board is assuming receipt of the
Hendricks's study first and then with the $38,960.00 there would be a way to
figure out where best to place the employees in the Commonwealth Attorney's
Office in the Pay Plan. All the Board has done for the Sheriff, so far, is to
make sure that his staff, based on the Hendricks Study, is brought up to the
minimum. These are two different issues. There is revenue in this budget to
move the employees in the Commonwealth Attorney's Office to the appropriate
range based on whatever criteria the Board derives. The Board has not
provided revenue to do the same thing for the Sheriff's Office. If that is
what the Board intended to do, fine, but he wanted to be sure the Board
understood what it is doing.
Ms. Humphris said she also wants to understand what the Board is doing.
Mr. Tucker said the Board put money aside for the Commonwealth Attorney's
Office. The Board has not done that for the Sheriff.
Mr. Bowerman said there will not be a discussion between the Sheriff and
Mr. Huff about where each deputy position should fall in the pay range. Mr.
Tucker said if that is what the Board chooses to do, that is fine. Mr.
Bowerman said that is not what the Board just did. It just did to the
minimum. Mr. Tucker said that is correct, the Board just did to the minimum.
000:i.35
March 23, 1998 (Afternoon)
(Page 17)
Ms. Thomas said for the Commonwealth's Attorney, the Board did not do
anything. But, Mr. Hendricks is to do a study. Mr. Tucker said that study
will only give some recommended ranges. Mr. Marshall said there is a
possibility that the Board has spent $41,320.00 of the Reserve. Mr. Tucker
said that is right.
Ms. Thomas said she thinks the Board has said it wants to spend the
$2,360.00 for the Sheriff's Department. Mr. Marshall said there is a total
possibility of $41,320.00. He is keeping a running total of changes today.
Ms. Thomas asked Mr. Tucker why he suggested that the Board keep both of
these amounts in a separate reserve fund. Mr. Tucker said it is not
necessary, but it helps staff identify that the revenue is being kept for a
specific purpose.
Ms. Thomas said she thinks the Board's decisions on the two departments
are different. For the Commonwealth's Attorney, it seems appropriate to hold
funds aside and wait to hear from Mr. Hendricks. For the Sheriff, she thought
the Board had said it wanted to bring the Sheriff's deputies to the minimum of
each of the Hendricks identified ranges, and the only question in her mind is
about Scottsville. Mr. Tucker said he was trying to get to the bigger
picture. What the Board is about to do for the Sheriff, it is not talking
about doing for the Commonwealth's Attorney. He is saying, the Board "will
get itself into a box." What it is about to do is put the Sheriff's deputies
at the minimum of a range. That will lead the Board to do the same thing for
the Commonwealth's Attorney after it gets the Hendricks' study unless the
Board decides to do something differently with the revenue. He knows the
Sheriff will come back when the Board starts moving the Commonwealth
Attorney's positions up in the range, and he will want the same thing done for
the deputies. The Board does not have the revenue to do that. It will not
matter if the Board keeps a decent amount in the Reserve Fund because there
would be revenue to work out some kind of a solution for both.
Mr. Marshall asked about doing the $35,642.00 and then setting aside
$74,602.00. Would that solve the problem? Mr. Tucker said "no." Ms. Thomas
said it would create more problems for her. Ms. Humphris agreed. Mr. Tucker
said it may be best to get the Hendricks study, then the Board use the study
to review both departments. At that time, the Board can discuss how to
implement the study. Mr. Martin said that makes sense.
Mr. Marshall said in that case, the Board is not setting any revenue
aside. That leaves $522,761.00 in the Reserve. He suggested discussing the
item under Public Safety, "Fire/Rescue Education (Training) Specialist" for
$30,538.00. Mr. Martin said in the long run it makes a lot of sense to
approve this request. No one objected to this expenditure.
Mr. Marshall said the Parks, Recreation & Culture item of $10,000.00 for
the Virginia Festival of the Book is moot at this point.
Mr. Marshall went to the Community Development Category. The first item
is a full-time engineering inspector for soil erosion at a cost of $44,355.00.
Ms. Thomas said she was at a house yesterday where she learned that the owners
had to turn to the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) to help with erosion
coming from a new house being built uphill from them. She cringed.
Mr. Perkins asked how many employees are in that department now. Mr.
Tucker said there are three in soil erosion and environmental types of issues.
Staff is going to do a further analysis of the Comprehensive Water Resource
Ordinance the Board adopted last month and look at the fees. He hopes that
most of this expense can be offset by fees. That fee schedule will be
returned to this Board to be adopted in the next few months.
Ms. Thomas said the Engineering Department's staff is being enlarged by
.05 FTE, the cost of which should be offset by fees. She would not want
anyone to think this full-time person's salary would also be offset by fees
because fees are a policy decision that has to be made by the Board.
Mr. Bowerman asked which amount the Board is considering. Mr. Marshall
said it is the $44,355.00 for a FTE beginning July 1. Mr. Perkins asked if a
January hire would be half of that amount. Mr. Huff said "no", there are
capital expenses involved with a new employee. No one objected to keeping
this expense on the list.
March 23, 1998 (Afternoon)
(Page 18)
000136
Next, Mr. Marshall asked for comments on the $25,000.00 for the
Albemarle Housing Initiative. Ms. Humphris was in favor. Mr. Perkins asked
if this is in addition to the $25,000.00 that is already in the budget. Mr.
Tucker said ~yes." No one expressed an objection to this expenditure.
Mr. Marshall asked if anyone objected to the $10,000.00 for the Piedmont
Housing Alliance. There were no objections.
Mr. Marshall said the Reserve now stands at $412,868.00. He suggested
the Board discuss the School Division shortfall of $60,290.00. He said that
amount will not be necessary if everybody agrees to a two and one-half percent
merit pool. Since he did not know where all of the Board members stand on
this matter, he asked for discussion.
Mr. Martin asked Mr. Tucker for a suggestion concerning the CIP/Debt
Service Transfer. Mr. Tucker said of the projects listed, the projects which
have been deferred to the year 2002 are sinking funds for maintenance and
repairs. If the Board wants to put additional funds in that category, staff
recommends that funds be added to School Debt Service.
Ms. Thomas asked if there is any urgency to the Chris Greene Lake
Property purchase. Mr. Tucker said he does not believe so. The amount shown
is what the County assessors have said the property is worth. The County has
offered that amount to the owner, and this individual has turned down the
offer. The purchase is listed in the CIP, but it is not an item he feels
needs to be funded at this time. The offer was made, and the owner has not
been receptive because the County's assessment was used for the offer.
Ms. Humphris asked about the project listed as "Revenue Sharing Road
Project Funding" in the amount of $120,000.00. Ms. White said when the County
got its highway revenue sharing allocation for next year it only received
$380,000.00. The $120,000.00 was included should the County get the
$500,000.00 allocation.
Mr. Marshall said he had a suggestion to make. He feels the Board is at
an impasse. He suggested funding the $60,290.00 to balance the School budget,
then proceed to a discussion of the compensation package and decide what the
Board is going to do with it.
Mr. Martin said he is thinking about it differently. He would suggest
putting $112,868.00 toward additional funding for the School Debt Service
which would leave an even $300,000.00 in the Board's Reserve Fund. He would
then suggest splitting that amount and giving $150,000.00 to the Schools and
keeping the other $150,000.00 in the Board's Reserve. He suggests leaving the
compensation package alone.
Ms. Thomas said $60,000.00+ may have to come from that balance for the
pay plans the Board has been discussing. Mr. Marshall said it could be as
much as $74,600.00. He thinks it all goes back to the pay plan and he thinks
the Board needs to make a decision.
Ms. Thomas asked if she could tackle this question from another angle.
She asked Mr. Tucker what amount he would be comfortable with in the Board's
Reserve Fund. Mr. Tucker said there are several expenditure costs which are
not accounted for in this budget, such as potential reversion costs but he
thinks the Fund Balance could be used for this expenditure because it is a
one-time expense. There is funding of the Comprehensive Services Act (CSA).
A third item is the purchase of an elementary school site. The Fund Balance
could be used for that expenditure also. Looking for a site for a new
northern elementary school is an item which will have to be done soon. The
$150,000.00 range for the Reserve Fund would be an appropriate amount to
retain. Out of that figure, the Board would have to consider funding for the
constitutional officer's requests.
Mr. Marshall said he personally would like to see the Board keep a large
reserve fund. Mr. Tucker said when there is a large reserve fund, people feel
they can come to the Board and ask for money out of the budget cycle. The
Board had no reserve fund during the current fiscal year and there were no
items requested for funding. The CSA is the only thing that worries staff.
It is an expensive item.
Mr. Perkins said the Board knows there are things waiting for funding.
The new elementary school site is one. He thinks money should be set aside,
March 23, 1998 (Afternoon)
(Page 19)
not only for the site, but also for the building. Why borrow every penny that
it takes to build the school when it is known that the expenditure is coming
up? The Board should start putting a little money aside so that when it comes
time to do it there is some money built up. Why spend every penny that comes
to the County? Ms. Thomas said that usually the Board puts money into a
capital reserve. Mr. Tucker said he would suggest that one-time revenue be
put aside for a school building because the structure itself is not a
recurring cost. The Fund Balance could be used to buy down the amount that
has to be borrowed, but he does not think the Board could put aside $6.0
million between now and the year 2000.
Mr. Martin asked if anyone wanted to change the proposal he put on the
table. Mr. Marshall asked why Mr. Martin is recommending that the Board give
the Schools an additional $150,000.00 when all they need is an additional
$60,290.00 to cover their shortfall. Mr. Martin said it depends on the
interpretation of "all they need."
Mr. Perkins said in looking through all the costs of the Schools he
found some items which he felt could be priced more appropriately. He
believes they could find enough items to cover the $60,290.00 shortfall. Ms.
Humphris said there is another way to look at that. Buying for herself at
home she would not have to buy a chair that would be used eight to ten hours a
day, five days a week. Buying things for institutional use, those things must
be of a better quality.
Ms. Thomas said she can support what Mr. Martin has proposed. Ms.
Humphris said she too can support it. The Board needs to look at the list of
other unfunded priorities of the School Division. It is a long list of
significant things, so she does not think that putting $150,000.00 into it
instead of the $60,290.00 is a huge problem.
Ms. Thomas said it was the discussion about the one-time funds paying
for operating costs that partially led the Board into the discussion about
compensation. That suggests this would help the Schools meet their needs in a
way that is more fiscally responsible. Mr. Bowerman asked Ms. Thomas to go
through what she had just said.
Ms. Thomas said if meeting operating needs with one-time money is not
ideal, then meeting those needs with operating money is more fiscally
responsible. She said Mr. Martin's proposal would lead to a more fiscally
responsible budget even if it does not increase much from what it has right
now. It will allow the Schools to expend what they had budgeted to expend at
the beginning of this school year which otherwise will carry over into the
next year. She thinks that is a sticking point with many of the schools, the
fact that their budgets have been level-funded and decrease with hold-backs
each year. The five and one-half percent holdback is greater than they have
had in the last couple of years.
Mr. Martin said when he first decided to run as a candidate for the
Board of Supervisors, he did so because he had served on the School Board and
felt that this Board did not understand the needs of the Schools. He wanted
to help make sure the Schools were adequately funded. Now that he has been on
the Board of Supervisors for a while he realizes the Board was not the "bad
guys" he thought. Several things he has noticed. Listening to what the
Schools said today, they started to use carry-over funds, anticipate those
funds, and put them into next year's budget. That's how much they are
hurting. He also looks at the bus replacement cycle. At one time it was
eight years, then it was increased to ten years, and now it is up to 13 years.
He is sure the Schools do a good job with maintenance, and maybe buses are
better than they used to be, but he sees that as another example of where they
are stretching.
Mr. Martin said he heard today that the Schools are anticipating
personnel that will not be there, and are putting that into the budget. He
remembers the first time the School Board did that, they were scared of the
consequences, and now it has become commonplace. Until Friday when the Board
heard about the additional $500,000.00 in State revenues, he believes the
Board would have done some different things for the School System. Ail of a
sudden the State became a little more benevolent and helped close the gap with
the money. He does not think this Board should just walk away and say
everything is solved now. He believes the School System has done an excellent
job of pinching pennies, maintaining quality education even though every year
they have to cut back on something. This year, at Hollymead and Stone
March 23, 1998 (Afternoon)
(Page 20)
000:1..38
Robinson in particular, teaching assistants are leaving. He knows that is
micro-management, and he knows that is bad. If you go into the elementary
schools, which he does often having three children in the elementary schools,
those teaching assistants are needed because it is not just 23 kids, but it is
23 kids, three of whom are special ed, two of whom are acting out, and then
all the other kids. If this Board had made this decision on Friday, it would
have done certain things. The Board was lucky on Friday to hear about the
$500,000.00.
Mr. Marshall said he remembers when he was on the School Board. The
members got long list of expenditures, and he would read through them and he
found a lot of things that did not jive with what he was doing out in everyday
life. He recalls one incident where they wanted to buy a John Deere tractor
to use for pushing snow, and were putting a cab over it, but it was several
thousand dollars more than he had just paid for the same tractor on his farm.
He bought his tractor from the highest priced dealer in the area because he
wanted to leave that money locally. He could have bought it cheaper in
Orange. He said the list went on and on like that.
Mr. Marshall said after a while he began to question those expenditures.
Now, all he sees is one sum coming from the School Board. He was frustrated
because the School Board would send the budget to the Board of Supervisors and
it was sent back saying there was not enough money, slash it. At that time,
he felt the problem was that there was not a good rapport between the County
Executive and the Superintendent of Schools. That problem has been solved.
The Superintendent had good working relationships with the County Executive
because he knew what the revenue projections would be, and the Schools would
know how much money it had to spend. It worked out well. They would give the
Board a budget balanced, based on revenue, and the Superintendent and County
Executive would go over the needs based on the amount of money they had, just
as the ordinary citizen does when doing personal shopping. Now, things have
changed. There is a School Board that now feels it has a mandate to spend
money on things he is not sure the County needs to spend money on.
Mr. Martin suggested that Mr. Marshall look at what the School Board did
with the bus schedule. It took guts for them to face all of those families
that yelled about the bus schedule. It took guts for them to stand up and
save that money. Things have changed since he and Mr. Marshall were members
of the School Board. He remembers that Mr. Marshall always used to underline
"staff development." Back then it was $250,000.00+ for that line item. Now,
it is something like $20,000.00, a very small amount. He remembers the days
when it could have been said there were some things in the system which were
elaborate. But, the Schools have taken tremendous "hits" during the last four
or five years, and to him this is an opportunity to do some catching up
without having to increase taxes.
Mr. Marshall said he and Mr. Martin agree on that. He doesn't know how
to say it. He feels that when a kid brings a note home from school, or he
(Mr. Marshall) gets telephone calls from some child putting pressure on him,
he wonders if it isn't being used inappropriately. He does not like the type
of pressure that is being put on him by the Schools. He does not like the
pressure that is being putting on him by some people in the system to get what
they want. What they want is more pay and less work.
Ms. Humphris said the Board members were elected to take the pressure.
The Board members are the people the citizens are supposed to speak to and say
what they want or do not want. That is what they have been doing. She
believes all of the Board members have received pressure from every direction,
and it's that old thing, "if you don't like the heat, get out of the kitchen."
Mr. Marshall said he is getting pressure now from a group of people who
are saying the County is spending too much. Ms. Humphris said the Board
members were elected to make the decisions. When she first became a Board
member eight years ago, she was of a mind that there was probably "fat and
fluff" in the County budget overall. She looked for it. At the time, there
were some things. Nobody has been able to show her and prove that the things
which are called ~priorities" in the School Board's additions to the
Superintendent's budget are in any way fat or fluff. These are necessities
which are caused by growth. This Board has no control ove~ growth, and
will continue and will increase. The County has been falling behind and it
can't afford to fall further behind. It is in everybody's best interest for
the County to have a superior school system. The only way to do it is to make
March 23, 1998 (Afternoon)
(Page 21)
000:1.;39
sure that things are appropriately funded. With almost 300 extra students in
the system every year, the Board can't just say "level fund, business as
usual." Something positive must be done. She thinks the County is extremely
fortunate that things have come about as they have. Things have been
happening since the middle of this fiscal year about moneys and whether there
will be continued shortfalls, whether there will be any extra from the State.
Right now, the Board is in a situation it could not have dreamed of even a
month ago. Instead of squeezing in and trying to do less, the situation
should be celebrated, and say that without a tax increase, the Board is able
to do these things, and be grateful that it is possible.
Mr. Martin said he would like to try another suggestion. When the Board
approved the last subdivision out in the Hollymead area, people said the Board
was trying to increase growth. His reply was uno", the County is trying to
direct growth. The subdivision does not cause people to come here. Second,
he heard people say that the infrastructure and the schools are not there. He
explained that the County is anticipating growth and planning for it as best
it can. The County does not support growth, does not want growth, but it is
coming, and it is not because of that subdivision. Given that, the Board of
Supervisors is trying to make sure the Schools are as prepared for growth as
possible. This is an opportunity now for the Board to be able to take a step
forward. Last year, the Schools stayed in place. The year before, the
Schools stayed in place. This is an opportunity to take a step forward in
terms of preparing the County for the growth it does not support, but which
keeps on coming.
Mr. Perkins said he believes the Board should be preparing for growth by
setting aside some money because it is known that new schools will have to be
built. Maintenance will need to be done on the schools. The Board of
Supervisors has increased the Schools budget every year. It might be said
that some of that was for inflation, and some was for growth, etc. In the
last ten years the Schools budget has increased over $30.0 million. He
believes the Board has "stepped to the plate" by providing millions of
dollars. The State comes forward with a little more money. Maybe they should
step forward again too. Their percentage has been decreasing over this same
period. If every penny is spent every year, there will be a time when there
is a real shortfall, and there will have to be some cuts made that are
substantial. He heard a lady talking several months ago about teaching during
the Depression. She taught in a school up in Sugar Hollow. There was not
enough money, and the school was closed at Thanksgiving. Hopefully, there
will never be that kind of a situation again. But, he thinks that a trouble
of the Federal Government today is that they spend every penny they have, plus
more, and that is why there is a trillion dollar debt. If the Board spends
every penny, then next year there is a percentage added to that, and so on.
These things are paid for forever in the percentage growth that occurs year
after year.
Mr. Bowerman said on Friday (until Mr. Tucker called him on Saturday) he
was approaching this meeting today with the thought of decreasing the merit
increase to two percent because he felt the Board needed to fund all of what
the Schools had requested. He was not going to vote to raise taxes. He was
not going to vote to change the rate because he felt that selling the meals
tax was a difficult job. It happened and he is appreciative of that fact. He
does not favor doing two things in the same year if he has a choice. It was
not an option for him to raise taxes. Then, on Monday, the State recognized
some of its responsibilities and gave the County $500,000.00 of its money.
The same thing the State accuses the Feds of doing, they do to the localities.
The picture changed so the Board was able to do more for the School System
than he thought possible.
Mr. Bowerman said he feels differently about the responsibility of the
Board of Supervisors and the responsibility of the School Board. The School
Board is never going to be accountable and responsible for the actions it
takes unless it is held to what it does and made responsible for it. If the
School Board says they need dollars to fund things, he will go out of his way
to see that they get what they say they need. He can only give them a dollar
amount. The Board is sitting here micro-managing, and the School Board does
not have to pay any attention to this Board at all. The School Board has to
be accountable for how they spend the money. The Board of Supervisors has to
be accountable for the dollar amount it gives the School Board. He thinks
that is how it should be because that is the way the Legislature ~dealt the
cards." One of the things the Board controls, since there is parity between
General Government and the Schools, is that the Board dictates a salary
000:1.40
March 23, 1998 (Afternoon)
(Page 22)
increase the School Board has to abide by, or the Board would be the first to
get upset if they didn't.
Mr. Bowerman said he is a little upset because he is being seen as not
being appreciative of County employees, on all levels, in all areas, because
he believes there can be a two and one-half percent merit increase this year
rather than three percent. It was a difficult year financially. Without the
Meals Tax, it would be entirely different. He believes that next year there
will be more resources available, and if there are not, then the Board will
have to look at a tax increase. The needs of the community have to be funded.
He said that by changing the merit pool to two and one-half percent and using
Mr. Martin's suggested allocation of resources it leaves the Board with
$150,000.00 in its Reserve Fund. If the School Board determines that the
$500,000.00 this Board says they don't have to spend on salaries can be used
for a sinking fund for the new northern elementary school, they can do that.
If they don't want to return the hold-back to the Schools in terms of
operating funds, they can do that, but without this Board taking some action,
they don't have that flexibility.
Mr. Bowerman said in today's world, a two and one-half percent merit
increase is a very fair increase. He thinks it gives General Government and
the Schools more flexibility to deal with some other needs rather than having
a policy of the Board of Supervisors dictate to them. He thinks the School
Board should be held accountable for how they spend their money. If they want
to spend money to pay their teachers more, that is their decision. Basically,
he is saying that almost all of the reserves the Board has are being directed
to the schools. He thinks it is appropriate to do that. Out of the one-half
percent reduction, General Government gets $80,000.00 to use as the Board
feels appropriate. He is not a non-education supporter. He is not a County
employee non-supporter. He is a very big supporter of both. He thinks the
salary and fringe package is a fair one in terms of the resources the Board
has to work with. He is grateful for the fact that the situation is different
today than it was just two days ago. He is not saying to reduce the merit
increase and give it back for a tax decrease. He does not think that is
responsible.
Mr. Marshall said there are a lot of people in the community who worked
for the banking industry who are now out of work. Some had been working 34
years and their compensation package with the new bank has been cut
tremendously. Others, his age, have been laid off, and can't find another
job. The thing he worries about, because he has reached that age, is the
people who live on a fixed income. He has to worry about what an increase in
taxes would mean to them. Even though the Board is not increasing the rates,
the assessment will go up next year. He knows it will affect people who are
on a lower income. He is tired of being made to look like the bad guy in this
school situation. He wants the schools to be the best they can possibly be.
He does not think that throwing every penny you have at them will make them
the best. People make them the best. He believes School personnel are being
paid an adequate wage. He will support Mr. Bowerman on the two and one-half
percent. As far as what is done with the final School budget, he does not
want to micro-manage where they spend their money. If the Supervisors reduce
the overall merit pool to two and one-half percent, the Schools are going to
have the money they need. Let the people who were elected to run the schools
decide where they are going to spendit. It is his job to make sure people
can afford to live in Albemarle County.
Mr. Perkins said he does not believe any Board member has mentioned a
tax cut. It is certainly not on his mind. He does think there is an
opportunity to save some money. The Board knows there are "some big hits"
coming up because of growth. There is also an opportunity to address what the
Superintendent talked about, the school teacher situation. Last year there
were teachers that got no increase, but School administrators, for the most
part, got merit increases, and some were substantial. This would give the
Schools the opportunity to address the teacher situation by limiting what they
give to the administrators. He thinks the Board needs to look at ~what is
comin' at us down the road" and prepare for it.
Mr. Marshall said he does not think the Board can vote on the School
budget until some decision is made about the compensation package.
Ms. Thomas said she would like to say a few words. She agrees with a
lot of what Mr. Marshall said about the situation in the community. She has
often said this Board has a lousy tax to work with. The real estate tax does
March 23, 1998 (Afternoon)
(Page 23)
000±41
not take into account that one has just been laid off from work. She thinks
there are major tragedies in the community and the country. The working
person is ~getting shafted" by the economy now. One of the few things the
Board can impact in the whole big economy picture, is the kind of education
given to kids. When she is angry about the kind of tax there is, when she
sees people who have worked hard for the Meals Tax thinking the money was
going to the schools, when she sees the cost per pupil, when she sees that the
County has not kept up with inflation in most years in the past, when she
knows the County is opening a new high school which she feels strongly should
be given every opportunity to be a really good high school, she comes down on
the side of thinking that although it is arbitrary and anybody could have come
up with different figures, the way Mr. Martin has suggested dividing up the
budget makes a great deal of sense to her.
Mr. Bowerman agreed.
Mr. Marshall said he can go along with what Mr. Martin has proposed if
Mr. Martin will go along with the change in the compensation package.
Ms. Thomas said she was not including that change in her comments.
Mr. Bowerman said he understood that. The distribution Mr. Martin
talked about was what he was talking about as the final product. There would
be $250,000.00 more for the Schools and $80,000.00 more for the General
Government from the compensation package change.
Ms. Thomas said she thinks that is failing to compensate employees while
continuing to ask more of them. She does not think the Board has the basis
for not going with the three percent increase.
Mr. Martin said it seems the Board is split three to three on this
issue, but he will put a motion on the floor. He moved that the Board use the
$412,868.00 that is currently before it by putting $112,868.00 toward
Additional Funding for School Debt Service, take the remaining $300,000.00 and
put $150,000.00 into the Board of Supervisors' Reserve Fund with the remaining
$150,000.00 going toward the School System budget. Ms. Humphris gave second
to the motion.
Roll was called, and the motion failed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Ms. Thomas and Ms. Humphris.
NAYS: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Bowerman.
Mr. Marshall said he believes the Board will have to agree on a
compensation package before this matter can be settled.
Mr. Martin asked if in the spirit of compromise, the merit increase
could be set at two and three-quarters percent instead of two and one-half
percent. Mr. Marshall said that would give the School System $130,000.00 more
and the General Government $50,488.00 more.
Mr. Bowerman said that will just upset everybody and retain less
discretion. Mr. Marshall said he has to agree with Mr. Bowerman.
Mr. Bowerman asked Ms. Thomas if she will agree to this change. He said
he will support it in the interest of getting someplace. Ms. Thomas said she
will not support the suggested change.
Mr. Marshall asked if another Board member wanted to try a different
motion, or would the Board members like to adjourn until Wednesday to think
about it.
Ms. Humphris asked for a recess.
Mr. Marshall suggested taking a recess until 4:45.p.m., then return and
decide whether to continue or adjourn until Wednesday. The Board recessed at
4:35 p.m.)
At 5:00 p.m., the Board reconvened. Mr. Marshall asked for suggestions
from the Board members.
00014;2
March 23, 1998 (Afternoon)
(Page 24)
Mr. Bowerman said he is always accused of being the swing vote, and
always accused of being the great compromiser, so he will try a motion. He
moved that the Board have the allocation of the Board's Reserve Fund as
indicated by Mr. Martin which would leave the Board, "after all the dust
settles", with $150,000.00, the balance going to the Schools as previously
outlined by Mr. Martin. He proposed, as Mr. Martin suggested but did not
motion, that the Board have a merit pool of two and three-quarters percent,
and that the funds generated by that change, about $42,000.00 for General
Government would be added to the Board's Reserve, and the Schools would have
an additional $120,000.00 that they could direct as they saw fit.
Mr. Marshall said instead of making that a motion at this time, can the
Board hear Mr. Martin first? Mr. Bowerman agreed.
Mr. Martin said one of the things he would like to suggest which would
have everyone involved is to use a portion of the funds to pay toward family
health insurance coverage which would ~take it from the one hand and give a
little bit with the other hand." Of course, it would not be across-the-board,
but for those with family coverage it would give a little bit of relief. Some
of that would go toward a small positive impact.
Mr. Bowerman said everybody would get that who had more than one person
on the health plan. People who would not have shared anything in the merit
pool would benefit also if they had a family plan. He thinks there could be a
more equitable way.
Mr. Marshall asked if the two ideas could be brought together. Mr.
Martin said it might be more beneficial for the employees who do pay for their
health insurance to get some relief in that manner.
Mr. Perkins said he would need to get some figures on that to see how
many employees are affected. He realizes it is a big impact for the single
person working in this system who has a family. It is a big "hit" to them,
but for the majority of people, there are usually two working people and some
are covered by plans other than the County's. He would like to see how many
people would be affected. This is adding more to the benefits package, and
next year it will be the same thing again. That is what he has heard so much
resentment about, that the benefits package, along with salary increases, are
too high.
Mr. Martin said this is not one of those things which you put on top and
then next year added to. Next year, the Board might decide not to fund the
additional amount. Mr. Perkins said it is hard to take away a benefit. Mr.
Martin said he was not suggesting taking it away, but it does not mean you
have to add to it next year.
Mr. Marshall asked if Mr. Bowerman's motion is to have a two and three-
quarters percent merit pool, and then give the School Board the rest of the
money. Mr. Bowerman said whatever was previously allocated. Mr. Tucker said
it was $112,868.00 and $150,000.00. On top of that would be $120,000.00, more
or less, from the change in the merit pool. Mr. Bowerman said that would be
in the dollar amount allocated to the Schools, and which they would have the
discretion to use as they see fit.
Ms. Thomas asked if the Schools could put that money back into salaries.
Mr. Tucker said they could. Mr. Marshall said that would be at their
discretion. Mr. Tucker said that is the parity issue Mr. Bowerman mentioned
earlier, or they could fund teacher's salaries and leave the classified
employees at two and three-quarters percent.
Ms. Thomas said she was not on the Board when "parity" was determined so
she does not know if that is ~cast in stone." Mr. Tucker said it is a policy
that both boards adopted. Being a policy, it can be changed at any time. Mr.
Martin said he was on the School Board when it was adopted, and the Board of
Supervisors drug the School Board, kicking and screaming, into it. Mr.
Bowerman said the merits of it are pretty good. Other systems are trying to
move to it because they have real problems. Mr. Tucker said there were major
issues between General Government and the Schools before there was parity, and
those issues were solved.
Mr. Marshall asked Ms. Thomas if she would support the suggestion. Ms.
Thomas said she had to think about it. Mr. Marshall said he and Mr. Bowerman
would like for the Board to be unanimous on this, if possible. Mr. Bowerman
March 23, 1998 (Afternoon)
(Page 25)
000 .43
said the budget process has been painful this year. It has been difficult
regardless of where the Board ended up today because each Board member had to
think through different scenarios.
Ms. Thomas said the people who lived through the Depression have a
different view about money than the generation that did not. She thinks all
the Board members went through that painful period and came into this meeting
with the mind set that compensation had to be cut. She thinks that is a left
over mind set. She does not think it is the reality of where the Board is
now. She does not think that three percent was unfair or too generous or
inappropriate or any of the other charges.
Mr. Bowerman asked if two and one-half percent or three and one-half
percent is any different. Ms. Thomas asked about a comparison of the wages
elsewhere in this area. Mr. Bowerman said the Board does not have the
information to know how the County has kept up, except for the Hendricks
study. Ms. Thomas said last year the staff came up with a similar kind of
figure and Albemarle was below what the surrounding counties were doing. She
thinks the County has at least a two-year memory. Mr. Tucker said the
Hendricks Study recommended a ten percent increase to implement the new Pay
Plan two years ago, and the Board only did four and one-half percent because
that is all the revenue that was available at the time.
Mr. Martin asked what it would cost if the County agreed to pay an
additional $10.00/month toward family health insurance. Mr. Huff said there
are about 2200 subscribers on the plan. Mr. Martin said that $2.00 or $5.00 a
month would not be noticeable. Mr. Tucker said if the Board is interested in
that idea, staff can come up with the figure later in the year. Mr. Martin
said he thought it might be important in the Board coming to some kind of a
conclusion today. It looks like the Board is at an impasse at this point.
Mr. Marshall said he talked with Mr. Tucker earlier today about this
impasse. Mr. Tucker said all of the information is fresh in everybody's mind,
and if the Board puts this decision off until Wednesday, it will have to go
through this whole discussion again. Mr. Marshall said he is not sure the
Board would not wind up in the same place. He thinks the Board needs to make
the decision today.
Mr. Martin said he did not see how there would be a decision made today.
Mr. Marshall said he does not believe it would be any better Wednesday, but if
that is the will of the Board, that is what it will do.
Ms. Humphris said she would like to keep at it for a little while
longer. She wanted to follow up on what Ms. Thomas said. Nobody here has
convinced her that the originally proposed three percent merit pool is too
large, or that the Board is overpaying, or over rewarding the people that work
so hard for the County. She does not believe they have persuaded Ms. Thomas
or Mr. Martin, but "the simple sticking point here is", is the three-percent
merit pool too much?
Mr. Marshall said nobody had convinced him that the Board needs to give
three percent when the CPI is at two percent. Looking around the community,
people are being laid off from work and people who are still employed are
having benefit packages cut. Then private enterprise has to compete with what
is being done in the County Office Building. He, personally, is one of those
people. He asked why the Board does not give two percent instead of three
percent when the CPI dictates that the Board should be considering two
percent. What is being done in other counties can be brought into the issue,
but would the employees rather live in those counties, or live in Albemarle
County? Would they rather work in that county, or would they rather work in
Albemarle County?
Ms. Thomas said it is more expensive to live in Albemarle County, so, if
anything, when looking at the other counties it should not be assumed that the
norm is for Albemarle to give a great deal less. Mr. Marshall said there are
a lot of people working for Albemarle County who live in Greene and Fluvanna
counties. Ms. Thomas said that is correct; it is expensive to live in
Albemarle County. Mr. Marshall said that is his whole point. He asked if Ms.
Thomas wanted Albemarle County to pay for everyone to afford to live in
Albemarle County. What happens if that individual has lived in Albemarle
County his whole life and all of a sudden is living on a fixed income, and he
can't afford to live in it anymore? Ms. Thomas said that would be a good
argument if the Board was facing a tax increase. Mr. Marshall said the
March 23, 1998 (Afternoon)
(Page 26)
000:1.44
assessments go up every year.
barely increased.
Ms. Thomas said this last time the assessment
Mr. Perkins said the tax increase was in the form of a Meals Tax. Mr.
Marshall said that was part of it. Ms. Thomas said people voted it in, many
of them thinking that meant the Board would be as helpful as it could be to
the County's School System. Mr. Marshall said those people voted for that
meals tax in lieu of having a real estate tax increase and nothing will
convince him o~herwise. Ms. Thomas Said she agrees with Mr. Bowerman about
not having a tax increase this year. She certainly never promised that it was
one or the other, but she thinks there were enough people who voted on that
basis Several people told her they convinced their neighbors to vote on that
basis, so she would not be arguing for a tax increase. She is arguing that
the Board should look at what is in front of it today. Mr. Bowerman said
basically all of the resources the Board had to put to work, are in the
schools.
Mr. Martin told Mr. Bowerman that he was not going to let him be the
swing vote this time. He is going to be the swing vote. In the interest of
making sure that the School System gets that $112,868.00 toward Debt Service,
and the $150,000.00 that the Board can give them, he will also support Mr.
Bowerman's motion for the two and three-quarters percent merit pool which
would give the Schools an additional $120,000.00. He agrees with Ms. Thomas
and Ms. Humphris that there is nothing wrong with the three percent, but he
would hate for the Board to get in a situation where it ended up not doing the
other stuff it needs to do because of what really will amount to a very small
amount to each individual person. He said he would second Mr. Bowerman's
motion.
Mr. Marshall asked if there were further discussion. Mr. Perkins said
he did not know how he would vote.
Ms. Humphris said when Mr. Martin said it will mean a very small amount
to the individual person, she thinks it would help to know what that very
small amount would mean.
Mr. Perkins said if the School Board chooses they can increase teacher
salaries if that is where they feel there is a shortfall.
Mr. Tucker said on a teacher's salary, the difference is $90.00 per year
between the three percent or two and three-quarters percent. Mr. Martin said
that after tax that is $75.00 divided by 12 or $6.25 per month. Mr. Bowerman
asked if this is what the Board would go to public hearing with. Mr. Tucker
said "yes" if that is what the Board votes on. Mr. Bowerman said that can
still be changed after the public hearing. Mr. Marshall said it can be
changed up until April 15. Mr. Bowerman said if he does not show up for the
meeting, you will know why and there will only be five people to vote.
Mr. Marshall said a motion had been made and seconded. He asked the
Clerk to call the roll.
Ms. Thomas said she could not remember where she votes in the order
today. Mr. Marshall asked for a repeat of the motion. Mr. Bowerman said it
deals with the distribution that Mr. Martin outlined in terms of the balance
of the Board's Reserve, reducing the merit pool from three percent to two and
three-quarters percent which would free up about $42,000.00 for General
Government and it would free up about $120,000.00 for the Schools which they
could then use as they see fit.
Ms. Thomas asked Ms. Humphris to comment since she was not sure of Ms.
Humphris' position at this moment. Ms. Humphris said that is why she wanted
to know what was being talked about in terms of the impact on the individual
person. If the Board does not agree, and stays at a three/three vote on the
percentage increase, she does not see anything else to do except agree to the
two and three-quarters percent merit pool, realizing that it means an average
of a little over $6.00 per month per person. She can't see being so stubborn
on this given where the Board is at the moment.
Ms. Thomas said she can go along with it too because she does not want
to do any grandstanding here that makes it look like there is one person who
cares a lot more about the schools than the others. She thinks there is
hardly anyone who cares more than Mr. Martin and Ms. Humphris. She is not
going to stick out. Mr. Bowerman asked if Ms. Thomas did not think he cares
March 23, 1998 (Afternoon)
(Page 27)
000 .45
as much about the schools as she does by excluding him and picking on Charles
and Charlotte because he would disagree with that assumption.
Mr. Marshall said he believes all the Board members care the same. He
said the motion has been made and seconded. He asked the Clerk to call the
roll. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins (reluctantly), Ms. Thomas,
Mr. Bowerman and Ms. Humphris.
None.
Mr. Marshall said the Board needs to adopt a motion setting the public
hearing, and using the same tax rates.
Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins to set the public hearing on the FY
1998-99 County Operating Budget for April 8, 1998, and to set the tax rates at
$0.72/$100 for real property and at $4.21/$100 on personal property. The
motion was seconded by Ms. Humphris.
AYES:
NAYS:
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.
Agenda Item No. 3. Other Matters Not listed on the Agenda from the
Board.
Ms. Humphris said she and Ms. Thomas represented the Board at the
Piedmont Virginia Community College last week for their 25th Anniversary
Celebration. For the County, they received a copy of PVCC's history which is
a beautiful volume. It is inscribed ~To the citizens of Albemarle County with
appreciation for past support and in partnership toward the Twenty-First
Century, by Deborah M. DiCroce, President, March 19, 1998." Inscribed in the
volume by the author, Joe Jenkins, "To Albemarle County, thanks for all the
support furnished by the County.- Ms. Humphris said she read the volume last
weekend and it is extremely interesting, most particularly the part about the
Visitors Center and how that came about. She gave the volume to Mr. Tucker to
put in the library on the Fourth Floor.
Ms. Humphris said she also received from Mr. Richard Herskowitz,
Director of the Virginia Film Festival, a volume which is a look back at the
1995 Virginia Film Festival. She said it is a fascinating volume and looking
through it she cannot image how long it took the many people to put this
volume together, when considering that this is just a review of one of the
film festivals. That also was a gift for the County.
Agenda Item No. 4. Adjourn. At 5:40 p.m., with no further business to
come before the Board, the meeting was immediately adjourned.