1997-03-19 adjMarch 19, 1997 (Adjourned-Afternoon Meeting) 00026~
(Page 1)
An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on March 19, 1997, at 1:00 P.M., Room 235, County Office
Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. This meeting was ad-
journed from March 17, 1997.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman (arrived at 1:06 p.m.), Ms. Charlotte Y.
Humphris, Mr. Charles S. Martin, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Ms. Sally H.
Thomas.
ABSENT: Mr. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County
Attorney, Larry W. Davis and County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 1:04 p.m., by the
Chairman, Ms. Humphris
Agenda Item No. 2. WORK SESSION: 1997-98 COUNTY OPERATING BUDGET:
School Division, GIS, Personnel Issues:
School Division. Ms. Karen Powell, Chairman of the School Board, read
into the record a prepared statement which is on file in the Clerk's Office.
She offered to answer questions, and noted that School Board members, John
Baker, Charles Ward and Madison Cummings were also present.
(Note: Mr. Bowerman arrived at 1:06 p.m.)
Ms. Thomas asked for an explanation of changes in personnel at the
elementary school level. A number of citizens have expressed concern that
staffing is being lost because of changes made at the Central Office level.
It has been said that even if the FTE figures are identical for an elementary
school (two in her district are Murray Elementary and Meriweither Lewis
Elementary), there have been changes made that in essence have reduced
staffing in those schools (the Murray principal said by a full FTE). Ms.
Powell said that is due to the Differentiated Funding, and the three instruc-
tional technologist positions currently at the Central Office. She asked
staff to answer this question.
Dr. Kevin Castner, Division Superintendent, said the decision was not
made at the Central Office level. There were 23 principals who tried to solve
this question together. They knew there would not be additional resources so
they needed to decide how to better address student learning needs in the
schools that have a greater diversity in their population. The principals
developed the Differentiated Funding plan. In so doing, there were many
compromises made. The principals, as a group, did not feel any of these
changes would have a serious detrimental affect at one school at the expense
of another. Anytime there is a change, and people have to make internal
restructuring, it will cause some pain. This is being tried this year. There
may need to be a change next year. This is not a way that can be continued to
solve this problem.
Dr. Castner said although he has heard some concerns from parents, the
impact on the schools is not entirely without some gain. The technology
change is an area that will affect the individual school in a positive way.
The gifted and talented program is an effort already in the elementary
schools, but instead of having five rotating positions, the individual school
has ownership of that full-time position. That is not a negative, but an
effort that was already in place. In the area in which the media specialist
was standardized, they had to make a tough decision in a tight budget.
Dr. Castner said the public in Albemarle County is hesitant to have the
Schools take any step backward. Yet, if the School System does not address
some of the learning needs for all of the children, then issues like the new
SOL (Standards of Learning) testing will eventually affect graduation require-
ments. It will create a higher passage rate by where a child lives in the
County because you can't get the same learning outcomes with equal effort.
Equity does not always mean equal. He believes funding has to be related to
the types of learning needs at each individual school. This debate is
healthy, and provides a checks and balance system that will keep the schools
from reaching too far. It is an issue the principals will revisit. The only
thing he wants to emphasis is that the decision was not made by the Central
000 64
March 19, 1997 (Adjourned-Afternoon Meeting)
(page 2)
Office, but the principals were asked to solve this problem. They did so
considering their school's interests and also the 11,500 kids in Albemarle
County schools.
Ms. Thomas said she would like to have some flat number answers for the
two schools she knows best. The principals of these schools feel they have
actually lost positions. Dr. Castner said they are restructured positions.
Ms. Thomas said the principals maintain they did not move the same number
around in their school building, but they are actually getting fewer positions
this coming year. Dr. Castner said that is not true. He thinks it is
important to define this correctly. He said that what Ms. Thomas is hearing,
and what he is saying, are both accurate depending on how it is defined. The
FTE's at both of those schools have remained the same. Some of the expecta-
tions in the FTE's are different, and there was some restructuring. That was
what the principals asked for in the hold harmless sense.
Ms. Thomas asked if these schools have the same number of FTE's, but
next year they will have to pick up some new duties with the same number of
students they had this year. Dr. Castner said not in the technical sense. He
would like to point out that there was a lot of discussion during the redis-
tricting process, and there was a group of parents who worked on the redis-
tricting. It was the Superintendent's recommendation that the neighborhood
school concept is a solid way of supporting schools and having parents
involved. The Committee said, if we are not spending the money on transporta-
tion, then we need to put additional support in those schools which have the
greater needs. It can't be both ways. He has an obligation to the schools
which have a greater diversity for learning, and that cannot happen unless
there is a budget which is open-ended. The principals will monitor it this
year, and they might have examples to give the School Board later.
Ms. Thomas said she agrees with the philosophical underpinnings of this,
but she wants to get the figures so that when she talks with her constituents
she is not caught saying something that is not correct. She has seen the
figures which show there are no changes in the FTE's but she had a principal
say to her there were changes in the requirements that had the same effect as
cutting an FTE. She wants to know if this technical position mentioned is
essentially something that now each individual school will have to pick up
that in this current year was being picked up by a position that was not a
part of that FTE on the chart. Dr. Castner said he does not disagree with
that interpretation, but he does not think the differentiated funding should
"take the hit" for this. In a school, if the school population stayed the
same, and if they had 11 classroom teachers last year, and because of the way
the population is distributed, they has 12 the next year, that was not because
of the differentiated funding. That was a school-based decision that had some
repercussions that was part of differentiated funding. Going from 11 to 12
classroom teachers with no increase in the number of students attending the
school was because of the way the school wanted to allocate the number of
teachers in each grade level. It was a school-based management decision.
Mr. Frank Morgan, Assistant Superintendent for Support Services, said in
terms of the two schools mentioned, there was one additional requirement of
the same number of FTE's. That was .2 for technology. That was the only
requirement that was different from this year. He said if they had 17.7
FTE's, next year that same number would have to include .2, that is, one day a
week, or 20 percent of the day, toward technology. That was the only
requirement beyond current requirements. Interestingly, both schools have
about the same enrollment (actually, one lost a little enrollment) but
maintained the same staffing. Both schools also received, for the same number
of students, additional money. Ms. Thomas said that is the sort of
information she needed.
Ms. Powell said that this year they had a Middle/High School Task Force
to bring suggestions to the School Board. There will be an Elementary School
Task Force which is to begin work in May to address some other areas. Ms.
Thomas said she believes people think the School System should meet more than
just minimum standards. When they find out that the minimum standards from
the State are shockingly low, they are surprised.
Ms. Humphris asked if other Board members had questions for Dr. Castner
about the School budget. There were none.
Ms. Thomas said there was $0.5 million that came to the School System
last year in no particular category. She could not find that figure in these
000265
March 19, 1997 (Adjourned-Afternoon Meeting)
(Page 3)
budget papers, and wanted to be sure the School System was getting that same
amount of money from the State again. Ms. Roxanne White, Assistant County
Executive, said that is not a separate item in the budget, but is part of the
base figure from the State.
Ms. Thomas said she would be interested in having someone from the
School System discuss the ideas they have put into practice to try to make
some of their cost centers self-supporting, such as the Cafeterias preparing
food for Parks and Recreation programs, or for Head Start programs taking
place elsewhere. They do charge for this service and do get some income.
Mr. Morgan said Ms. Pat Carlson is the Director of Food Services. She
could not be present at this meeting today. About 18 months ago, she said
there are wonderful facilities which are only used four to five hours each
day. She felt the Schools could provide meals for places such as senior
centers, lunches for Head Start, and some other programs that come through
social service agencies. Mr. Morgan said he felt it was a good idea, and they
should also be able to do better than just cover costs. He said Ms. Carlson
has been able to provide for senior centers, for Head Start, for summer
programs, even in the City, lunches and meals at a lower cost and of a higher
quality than they were used to, and she has been able to use it as an income
source for Food Services which is a completely self-sustaining program. They
have been looking at expanding the program. There have been no negative
comments made about the program; the food quality is very high. It has helped
Ms. Carlson to hold down prices in the school cafeterias.
Mr. Morgan said that Mr. Willie Smith, Transportation Director, recently
said to him that Albemarle has a very good facility in vehicle maintenance.
School systems in surrounding areas either have small garages, or they are
sending their buses to Richmond for service, etc. He suggested looking at
what Albemarle might provide to those systems on a paying basis which would
generate income and also be less cost to those systems. Staff is in the
process of investigating that idea.
Ms. Powell said she is proud of the School staff. The Albemarle School
System has been under a lot of scrutiny, and welcomes it. They welcome the
accountability. They have spent a lot of time trying to help people under-
stand different documents and some of the issues.
Mr. Martin asked about the request for $85,000 for a Summer School
Acceleration Project. Dr. Castner said students in Grades K - 8 who are
failing to make adequate academic progress need extended focused instruction
during the summer in order to maintain and increase essential skills in
language arts and math. Current State reimbursement and local funding do not
cover the cost of providing a quality program. One problem is that if the
County does not provide transportation, the kids cannot attend summer school.
There is interest in expanding the summer school to increase the present
effort. This request is listed as an unfunded priority in the School Board's
budget.
Mr. Martin asked if the $85,000 is for a transportation issue. Dr.
Castner said this extended learning program will provide from four to six
weeks of focused academic instruction for identified students. Additional
funds are needed to support the cost of the project, which is financed in part
by State reimbursement for identified eligible students who are two or more
grade levels behind in reading, have not passed the Literacy Passport Test,
are in the lower quartile for achievement within their school. It is to cover
a number of issues.
Mr. Martin said specifically he would like to know where the summer
programs are held now, what is the transportation issue now, and what does the
$85,000 do over what is in effect now? Dr. Castner said they will be able to
serve more students, and will be able to serve more students in all of the
schools. Mr. Morgan said it is to provide more extensive services than they
can provide now, and to provide transportation which they do not provide now
because of the cost. They want to serve as many kids as possible.
Mr. Martin asked where there are no summer programs now. Mr. Jackson
Zimmerman, Director of Fiscal Services for the Schools, said one of the real
issues now is with the fixed number of dollars which have remained constant
over the past few years. Summer school has grown substantially, now having
over 600 students. With the same amount of dollars for the program, they may
have to tighten the requirements for attendance at summer school. Just
March 19, 1997 (Adjourned-Afternoon Meeting)
because of the financial restrictions on the program, they may not be able to
serve all of the kids they would like to serve. They also may not be able to
provide transportation to all of those kids. Some schools offer transporta-
tion and some .schools do not. It depends on the financial ability of the
school to provide that transportation.
Dr. Castner said this is being subsidized by the local schools from
their general funds which is a credit to those schools. It is also competing
against textbooks and other supplies. When Yancey did their School Improve-
ment Plan, this was the single most important intervention they wanted to
expand. They wanted to expand the number of days, and they wanted to address
an increased number of their students. They will not be able to support that
beyond what was done last year. It is an area he is in favor of doing.
Mr. Martin said he would like to have more information. He thinks the
summer program is important and needs to be available to everyone who needs
it. What he was trying to get an answer to, what do you have, where is it
now, where is it that you do not have it, and where do you have transportation
or not have transportation, and what will the $85,000 do in terms of having it
for everyone who needs it? Mr. Morgan said it has been available either in
the student's home school or one near by. It is a question of how many kids
can be served based on the money. Location is not the issue, it is the number
of kids who can be served with the money.
Mr. Martin asked if the service includes transportation. Mr. Morgan
said some schools were able to take some money from their own funds and some
were not.
Mr. Martin asked if the $85,000 can do that. Mr. Morgan said he will
get Mr. Martin more details concerning his question..
Ms. Thomas said the Board heard a lot of comments at the public hearing
that the School budget is inadequate, so the kids are being short-changed.
Other people said presenting an unbalanced budget is not what the School Board
is charged to do. This puts the Board in an impossible situation. She does
not know what to say to her constituents except to say that this is the budget
the School Board felt would be an adequate, which is what "maintenance of
effort" is. She has been to the Superintendent's round tables, so she
understands a lot of effort is going into educating students. She asked Ms.
Powell to respond to the School Board's comfort level in the proposed budget.
Ms. Powell said she mentioned in her statement that the School Board had
significant debate on how to submit its budget. They wanted to be reasonable,
but they may have been too conservative. They also wanted to be sensitive to
the fact that the Supervisors are charged with finding resources to fund the
needs of the schools. If the Supervisors cannot find the additional money to
fund the Schools "unfunded priority list", the SchOol Board will cut whatever
is necessary out of its budget. These are items which they believe help the
education of students in the community. They would like to be able to provide
the instructional technologist and still have adequate class sizes in art and
music at the elementary level. The School Board knows the Supervisors are in
the difficult position of having to decide what it will do.
Mr. Martin said when he was a member of the School Board several years
ago, one way it got into not having enough, textbooks and being behind in that
area had to do with the feeling that textbooks were slowly becoming obsolete
both in terms of content, and the feeling that computer technology was more
useful for the price. He is often frustrated when trying to help his son with
homework because he has no book to look at. He asked if school administration
still thinks that being behind on textbooks is not that big of an issue
because of technology. Dr. Castner said the Schools have gone from $250~000
in the budget this year, to $400,000 next year for textbooks. Over the next
three or four years, they are going to try to catch up what they have not been
able to keep up on the cycle. If they keep this item at $400,000, they will
be able to catch up. However, there is an item on the "unfunded priority
list" which will catch them up quicker. With the SOL and its causing
unanticipated changes in needed resources for certain areas of the curriculum,
they had to change plans for what they were going to purchase. He is
concerned that the new standards for accreditation might require every child
to take earth science. There would not be a book for every earth science
student. They do not devalue the textbook although the information used
through technology is supplementing that book. They have not backed away from
March 19, 1997 (Adjourned-Afternoon Meeting)
(Page 5)
00026]
textbooks, but there are a lot of unfunded priorities competing for the same
money.
Ms. Powell said the SOL and the Standards of Accreditation have the
School Board and staff trying to decide what the focus should be. A year or
more ago when the SOL changed the reading levels to tie them to certain ages,
reading materials for the appropriate reading levels for those children had to
be adopted.
Dr. Castner said he wanted to let the Supervisors know that next Monday
the School Board will be made aware of the significant changes in the Stan-
dards of Accreditation. These are the most major changes seen in Virginia in
many years. By having exit tests that students have to pass before they
graduate, and by needing 27 credits for an advanced diploma, with only a six-
period day, there is a dilemma. Some of these things are positive in the
overall, they will be passed to the school divisions and affect the next
budget cycle. The Schools did not realize how much it would affect them
because they only found out about it a day or two ago, and the period for
testimony is only during the next 60 days. The time line on this suggests
that on May 22 the State Board is going to adopt it. There are changes which
require that every child needs algebra and geometry to graduate, and that will
start next year with the incoming freshmen. He hopes the Supervisors will
look at some of these issues and how they might affect some of the anticipated
spinoffs which they will be talking about next year. He is concerned.
Mr. Martin said he does not think that should be a problem because there
was a promise by the new governor that there would be no unfunded mandates.
Ms. Humphris said the Supervisors have already been warned that next year will
be a difficult year financially with the opening of the new high school, and
the operational costs that will need to be assumed, plus debt service. She
assumes this will be a relatively unfunded mandate. Ms. Powell said the
Schools are funded by the State directly in relation to its composite index.
Ms. Humphris thanked the School Board for its budget presentation.
GeoqraDhic information System. Current and Future Issues/Demonstration.
Mr. Tucker introduced Mr. Tex Weaver, Planner, to make the presentation.
Mr. Weaver said he will provide information on the County's GIS
Implementation Plan which is funded through the current budget submittal, and
is recommended for funding by the County Executive.
Mr. Weaver said the GIS development process has been ongoing for a
number of years beginning with the Building Locator System as the foundation
for the GIS. For the past several years staff has been working with a vendor
to implement the Enhanced 911 System. Staff, in the Fall of 1996, took over
operational control of that building locator system. During transition, they
established a GIS Development Team made up of County staff and other local
agencies. The Team set out to determine the priorities of GIS applications in
the County. They evaluated GIS software solutions in the existing community.
They determined GIS capabilities and initiatives of other local agencies such
as the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, the Albemarle County
Service Authority, the City of Charlottesville, and the University of Vir-
ginia. The idea to bring all of these local agencies into the County's
decision-making was to essentially minimize cost and duplication of efforts,
and to increase the potential for data sharing.
Mr. Weaver said the next step in the process is to initiate a pilot
process for GIS implementation. The pilot process is to verify costs and
benefits, to test any alternatives, evaluate the hardware and software
solutions and also to reduce the risks of underestimating costs, overstating
benefits, and not meeting system requirements.
Mr. Weaver outlined some of the existing mapping features which the
County has in-house at this time associated with the building locator system.
The existing mapping system includes a complete road network including road
names. All state and private roads which service three or more houses have
been named. All structure locations have been identified and mapped. Address
information including addresses for individual structures, as well as address
range information and road segments, has been collected. All water features
have been captured. Political boundaries have been incorporated into the base
mapping, as well as community and subdivision names.
March 19, 1997 (Adjourned-Afternoon Meeting)
(Page 6) ............. ·
000265
Mr. Weaver showed an image of the digital file staff works with on a
daily basis to update the building locator system as development occurs mn the
County. He then showed a digital file of the Pantops area. Of the 139 tax
maps that are maintained by staff, they chose Tax Maps 78 and 79 for the pilot
program because of the diverse geography associated with these two maps.
These differences in topography will help them test their methodology in tax
mapping.
Mr. Weaver said a component of the system in place at this time is
digital aerial photography. The photography was completed in April, 1996 and
staff is now receiving the final deliverables. The deliverables include Mylar
for blueprint reproduction, Mylar prints of each tax map at 600 scale so it
can be directly overlaid with the regular tax maps. Another component which
is new is the digital files which can be used for reference on personal
computers. This is of vital importance in updating the building locator in
support of E-911. The digital photography is of a high accuracy so that as
new development occurs, new road networks in subdivisions can be plotted,
existing mapping can be corrected in order to have an overall base product
which is very accurate.
Mr. Weaver outlined some of the County's existing mapping capabilities.
The magisterial districts have been mapped in a digital format using the
building locator system which is in-house now. The fire-rescue response areas
have been mapped. Mountain protection areas in support of the ordinance staff
is currently working on have been mapped. Also, maps were produced for the
Comprehensive Plan land use designations adopted in June, 1996. Community
facilities were mapped: schools, parks, county buildings, police, fire and
rescue.
Mr. Weaver spoke about the storage and modification of digital mapping.
He said it is a permanent storage mechanism. The maps are produced just one
time in a digital format. As an example, he showed a map produced of open
spaces which was adopted a couple of years ago. He said the map was done by
hand by technicians and student interns in the graphics section of the
Planning Department. Literally, all of the mapping was developed over a two-
year time frame. It was done with colored markers, colored pencils, sticky
tape, and highlighters. It is a very detailed map. If the map were taken to
a meeting and a cup of coffee were spilled on it, or it was lost or stolen, it
would have to be recreated by hand. The colors on the map are already fading.
That is the current process. It would be easy to recreate the map in a
digital format. That format would also provide the capability for on-demand
reproduction. In a digital format, the maps can be reproduced at any scale,
and in a minimum amount of time.
Mr. Weaver said the Automated Parcel Mapping Process would be useful for
a Comprehensive Plan amendment request. Changing the zoning category of a
parcel on the map can be done as it occurs. It is as easy as modifying a word
processing document.
Mr. Weaver said that is where the County is at this time in the develop-
ment of the building locator system. The tools are in place to manage, not
only the Enhanced 911 system, but to catch up with technology and produce
better products more efficiently as a result.
Mr. Weaver outlined the current mapping process. The parcel maps begin
with a base tax map based on 1937 aerial photography, so they are actually
recreating the tax maps at this point in time. There was aerial photography
in 1937 and someone annotated parcel boundaries, and the County has been using
a manual method to update tax maps since then. He said with each step, there
is the potential for human error. Each of these maps is manually scaled, and
parcel boundaries are being altered, not only the ones that were there before,
but also the new ones. This has been done in this manner since 1937.
Mr. Weaver then went on to explain the automated parcel mapping process.
One important component is that each parcel is linked to a data base, a
computer automated mass appraisal system which is maintained by the Real
Estate Office. Benefits of some of the automated parcel mapping benefits are:
it is an accurate base for assessment functions, acreage, etc.; there is
concise record of parcel history; there is a record of every subdivision that
takes place so that subdivision can be queried in a data base; there would be
the elimination of redundancy; there is the ability to manage increased
demands as the County grows. There are 800+ new subdivisions (lots) on an
March 19, 1997 (Adjourned-Afternoon Meeting) 000269
(Page 7)
annual basis. As development continues to occur, there will be the tools in
place to better manage that growth. It will provide increased efficiency in
decision-making. Answers to many questions are just a "click" of a button
away. Access to all the different data bases is available.
(Note: Mr. Bowerman left the room at 2:30 p.m. and returned at 2:35
p.m.)
Mr. Weaver outlined the current owner notification process the State
requires when a parcel of land is requested to be developed and a public
hearing is held. It is very labor intensive.
Mr. Weaver said a GIS could complement the Fiscal Impact Model that will
soon be put into operation. That Model provides hard fact output based on
assumptions of development that will potentially occur in the County. It
contains assumptions on impacts to budgeting, to taxes, number of school
children, and those are detailed numbers as to the impacts. GIS could produce
a spacial analysis by printing a map to show where the development occurs and
what the impacts will be. It will play out a scenario and produce it graphi-
cally.
The GIS can also import quite a bit of Census Geography and perform
those queries as well. An example would be spacial demographic analysis
pertaining to age, race, income, poverty statistics, etc. A number of
decisions are based on census data.
Mr. Weaver said in closing that staff is talking about a phased GIS
implementation plan approach using the building locator system as the founda-
tion for the GIS. The core components are in place now. The County has the
base mapping and the hardware necessary, and essentially the software neces-
sary to support GIS implementation. Staff is working with other GIS users in
the community to make sure that there is data sharing. There is no need to
recreate something other agencies may already have in digital format. This is
an opportunity to manage the information the County has much more efficiently,
and staff resources as well. There will be increased efficiencies in data/map
generation techniques, and in data/map retrieval for decision-making. Mr.
Weaver then offered to answer questions.
Ms. Humphris asked how staff deals with security. Mr. Weaver said it
will be the same as it is for the current network environment through the
Novell system which is in place, and certain people would have "read only"
capabilities. They would not be able to modify data.
Ms. Thomas asked if staff already has all of the census data. Mr.
Weaver said staff does not, but that data is readily available.
Ms. Thomas said she saw some maps a year or two ago which showed what
are referred to as "pockets of poverty" by the Census Bureau. In her mind,
she overlaid magisterial district lines on those maps and came to some
interesting conclusions about why there are differences. She asked if systems
are compatible so that is no problem. Mr. Weaver said that during meetings
held recently between agencies, compatibility is a hot topic across different
file formats. Making these comparisons is a good observation. It is esti-
mated that about 80 percent of all decisions made in local government are
based on geography. The land use decisions are based on maps. Distribution
of resources, community facilities are located based on geography, the
population served, etc.
Mr. Perkins asked if the telephone companies, the electric power
companies and the cable companies are a part of this system. Mr. Weaver said
they use GIS technology for different purposes. Mr. Perkins asked if the
County could request their information, Mr. Weaver said 'they are willing to
work with the County. He has had numerous conversations with Virginia Power
and the telephone companies that use this technology.
Ms. Thomas said she is interested in trails feeling they are a resource
which is endangered in the community. She asked the process for mapping
trails, because they don't appear on existing maps now. Mr. Weaver said staff
creates trails, roads, etc. on maps every day. Also, the aerial photography
will often pick up old easements, abandoned roads, and that sort of thing.
Any information is easy to add. Any variation of those things can be
displayed.
March 19, 1997 (Adjourned-Afternoon Meeting)
(Page 8)
000; ?0
Mr. Weaver said the GPS (Global Positioning System) allows a user to go
out in the field, and with a click of a button on a hand-held device determine
the exact location of a point in the field. Surveyors are using this technol-
ogy now, and are creating their subdivision plats, being able to delineate
within centimeters an exact point on the map, enter that into their computer
aided system and if all of the lot lines are exactly in the right location,
the numbers are plugged into the County's computer system, and it is an exact
fit.
(Note: Mr. Martin left the room at 2:49 p.m.)
Mr. Bowerman asked if staff feels aerials are better than a satellite.
Mr. Weaver said that is changing. Last year, staff took a look at the
availability of satellite imagery as compared to aerial photography. The
resolution at that point was a little better with the aerial photography.
What the satellites are able to capture on the earth's surface is astronomical
and is becoming more commonplace. Aerial photographs are just like newspaper
print broken up into little dots, called a raster image. Each little block is
about three feet on the image. With the satellite imagery it is about 10
meters. The resolution is a little cleaner, and that is why staff opted to go
with the aerial photography. The County has been on a five-year cycle for
aerial photography since 1980. The next time it is done, staff will look at
the potential for satellite imagery. It can be less expensive as well.
(Note: Mr. Martin returned to the room at 2:51 p.m.)
Ms. Thomas said she has heard that USGS does not archive its old maps.
She asked the County's archives situation. Mr. Weaver said the digital
imagery is archived on CD-ROM. Ms. Thomas said there will be changes made to
it all the time. At what point will the changes be frozen? Mr. Weaver said
it is a matter of just backing up the current file before making changes.
There is then a "snapshot" of history. There is a lot of potential in the GIS
system and staff is anxious to implement this technology.
(Note: At 2:52 p.m. the Board recessed, and reconvened at 3:04 p.m.)
FY 1997-98 Capital Budqet. Long Term Financial Projections. Mr. Tucker
said Ms. Roxanne White will make a presentation concerning the Capital
Improvement Program and some long-range trends.
Ms. White used slides to make the presentation. She pointed out some of
the changes in the CIP. The Rivanna Greenway project ($167,000) and the Route
250/Route 616 turn lane ($10,000) were moved to the new Tourism Fund, thereby
reducing the General Fund transfer by $177,000.
Ms. White said the other changes are in the School Division. Back in
November there was a $4.3 million increase in funding of the new high school.
The School Division changed their CIP to eliminate the PREP facility ($2.5
million), reduce the Henley project ($1.0 million), reduce technology funds
for Burley Middle School ($225,000), and the Board of Supervisors asked the
School Board to find an additional $500,000 in their budget to make up this
shortfall. They did find that $500,000, but the Board also asked them to find
$4.3 million in reductions in the CIP. That was done to keep them within the
current debt service level. Several standards were set up in the Financial
Policies, and debt service was still below those standards, but staff felt it
was actually increasing the debt service payment, so they were asked to reduce
it by the $4.3 million. They made the following changes: reduced Northern
Elementary and deferred the project for one year ($1.7 million); reduced Red
Hill Elementary project and deferred it for two years ($3.7 million); added
renovation projects at Stony Point and Brownsville elementary schools ($0.42
million); added back Burley Middle School Technology Lab ($0.225 million);
moved Stone Robinson Elementary and Walton Middle School projects forward one
year.
Ms. Thomas asked if those are long-term, intelligent decisions. Did
someone asked them if this will cost more in year 10 than it would have if
they had not made these decisions. Ms. White said that has actually been a
decision of the School Board as to which project they wanted to reduce based
on different factors.
Mr. A1 Reaser said the elementary school projections have leveled off in
year 1998. They thought it was appropriate to go from a 600-pupil northern
elementary school to a 400-pupil. They will do what was done with the new
March 19, 1997 (Adjourned-Afternoon Meeting)
(Page 9)
oooz?x
high school and build the core for 600 pupils. With current projections, they
did not see the need for the other 200 seats. They knew that this might
depend on what happens on the UREF land, and that it might have to be put back
into the plan. Concerning the Red Hill School reduction, growth has not
occurred in that area. They do not anticipate that there will be the growth;
it is a true reduction. They anticipate coming back at some point with a new
southern elementary, but this project was out five or more years in the plan.
Ms. White then showed slides illustrating Debt Service Ratios, and Five-
Year Revenue Projections. She noted the following major impacts on revenues
in the future: Monticello High School, $2.3 million in on-going operating
costs; revised enrollment projections added 454 students over the next four
years, 164 of them are expected in FY '99 based on a downward reassessment
increase; mandated Virginia Retirement System COLA for the School Division, an
additional $0.400 million annually; debt service with $0.500 million annual
average increase; bus replacement and School Textbook Fund which is unfunded
in FY 497 needs to be pushed forward to FY '99 at a cost of $0.383 million;
technology support and training at a cost of $1.13 million over five years;
and, paid firefighters at a cost of $1.7 million over five years. Not shown
are additional costs for the new Jail, or the Juvenile Detention Facility.
All of the Capital Improvement Projects are itemized and described in the
operating budget.
Mr. Perkins asked what changes are expected in the Revenue Sharing
Agreement with the City. Ms. White said that figure goes up with the reas-
sessment increases. That is actually one number that has come down a little
bit since September because it reflects the downward trend in the reassess-
ment.
Ms. Thomas asked how good the County is in getting money in from the
taxpayers. ' She asked if there is a high percentage of collections. Mr. Huff
said it has been at about 98 percent the last couple of years.
Ms. Thomas said she got out her old Fiscal Resource Advisory Committee
Report dating back to 1989 to see if it had any words of wisdom, and it
didn't.
General Government Critical Issues. Mr. Tucker said this concludes the
formal presentations to be made by staff today. Ms. Thomas indicated last
week that she had a couple of items she would like for the Board to discuss
further; the Discovery Museum and the Free Clinic.
Ms. Thomas said as concerns the Free Clinic it is a small amount of
money, so it almost becomes just symbolic. But, in this year's budget,
nothing is just symbolic because every dollar counts a lot. She wondered why
the Free Clinic was not given a three-percent increase since most of the local
agencies did get that increase. She recognizes the argument that local
government cannot pick up health care costs, but even with the Board's rather
modest support of the Free Clinic, there is no dollar increase at all. Ms.
White said the rational of the Budget Review Team was to look at it in a
different philosophy than other programs. The Team looked at this as a
contribution in recognition of the fact that the Free Clinic can use that
money to leverage other moneys. Mr. Tucker said the City did not recommend an
increase. Ms. White said the City is funding their contribution through a
CDBG grant.
Ms. Thomas asked about the VPI-SU Extension Agency. She said there was
a proposal that they charge for the use of their rooms. She asked if this
agency was reviewed by the Budget Review Team. Ms. White said they are
reviewed by a Joint Staff Team which works with the City's budget office.
Ms. Thomas said the D.A.R.E. Program, which the Sheriff's Department
likes, has been shown nationally to not be effective. She wonders if anyone
is looking at that program which is difficult to assess. Ms. Humphris said
she also heard that report on the radio, but has seen nothing in writing.
When she heard it, because she had been to so many D.A.R.E. graduations and
seen the kids, it went through her mind that this is one of those things
"where one year red wine is good for you, and the next year don't drink red
wine." Mr. Martin said he does not believe that in this area there is any
misinformation given out. He thinks the kind of misinformation they were
talking about nationally was because a lot of the officers tend to try and
Approved by the Be
Date
Initials
0002
March 19, 1997 (Adjourned-Afternoon Meeting)
(Page 10)
scare the kids. He has never been in a class where scare tactics were used.
It is a pretty straight-forward program. Ms. Thomas said it is that kind of
feedback she was looking for.
Mr. Martin said he was not present at Monday's meeting, and would like
to ask about the Reserve Fund. Mr. Tucker said that of the funds that were
available, all of the Reserve Fund was placed in the Board's Reserve at about
$1.1 million, and identified as being available to cover the Schools shortfall
should this Board decide to approve that use. Staff understood it was to meet
as closely as possible the shortfall in the Schools budget.
Mr. Tucker said he knows there are two more work sessions scheduled, but
it would be helpful to staff if the budget could be finalized next Monday. He
must leave by 2:30 p.m. on Monday since he has both a Rivanna Water & Sewer
Authority and a Rivanna Solid Waste Authority meeting that afternoon. He said
if the Board members need additional information on any item, staff will
provide that information upon request.
Ms. Humphris asked if the Board should consider meeting at noon on
Monday. Several Board members thought that was a good idea. Ms. Humphris
said to make that change.
Agenda Item No. 3. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
Board. There were no other matters mentioned at this time.
Agenda Item No. 4. Adjourn. With no further business to come before
the Board, at 3:50 p.m., the meeting was adjourned