Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMarch 31, 1997 Work Session II II 11239 A Budget Worksession of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors was held on March 31, 1997, at 7:00 p.m., in the Board of Supervisors' Meeting Room, County Administration Building, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia. PRESENT: Chairman James L. Longerbeam; Vice Chairman Richard C. Shickle; W. Harrington Smith, Jr.; Charles W. Orndoff, Sr.; Robert M. Sager; and Margaret B. Douglas. STAFF: Representative from each county office. Three from school board administration and Chairman of the School Board. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Longerbeam called the meeting to order stating this would be a worksession on the budget. He noted that the format might not be the best; however, with everyone's cooperation and input it will let those present know just where we are, at this time, with the budget. COUNlY ADMINISTRATOR JOHN R. RILEY. JR. OUTLINES PROPOSED CUTS FROM GENERAL FUND SIDE OF COUNlY BUDGET Mr. Riley explained that on the information provided to the Board it spells out the proposed cuts from the general side of the budget, and there is a local share comparison. He further explained that the information also spells out the total increase in the General Fund of 8.5 million dollars. He told the Board that the various departments are represented should a Board member wish to ask any questions. Mr. Longerbeam asked about the increase in the Library funding and the historical society EDC funding. Mr. Riley replied that following discussion with the city manager it was felt the library could be cut about $20,000 leaving them with a 5% overall increase in funding for the fiscal year. The historical funding includes the three city museums to include Stonewall Jackson Headquarters, Abrams Delight and George Washington Headquarters. The county's funding for this is 68%, and the $67,000 is for the promotion of these three museums under the tourism section ofthe budget. Mr. Sager asked about the $350,000 for the Rose Memorial Foundation and was he correct in that all the county does "ith this is administer the funds. Mr. Riley replied that is correct. Mr. Shickle stated that at one time the Board received a list of one time capitol expenditures on the county side. If an item appeared on that list, but did not appear specifically on a previous 240 version of this list was it due to the fact that level of detail was not provided, as there seems to be some new items listed on the first list that are not on this list. Mr. Riley replied that is right. Mr. Shickle asked, but they were included in these numbers originally. Mr. Riley replied that is correct. Mr. Sager asked if the $682,049 is what Mr. Riley hoped to reduce to zero. Mr. Shickle asked about the airport funding for a $461,500 increase and whether this has been reconciled with all the outstanding projects with the airport. Mr. Riley replied no, as the county is still waiting for the final report from the auditors, Robinson, Farmer and Cox. Mr. Shickle asked how we could know if this $461,500 was a good number. Mr. Riley replied that he would say that was a high number. Mrs. Shifller explained that we really don't know at this point as this is just a request. She further explained that this figure should be known within the next few weeks. Mr. Shickle asked if a time table was in place for receiving this information. Mrs. Shifller explained that they were told a couple of weeks ago it would be sent soon. Mr. Shickle stated that he wanted to support the airport and their projects, but he wants to make sure the reconciliation is done before the county moves forward. Mr. Riley stated that was also the feeling of staff. Mr. Longerbeam asked about the $460 plus thousand dollars and whether this was just the shifting of monies between Federal and State, bad accounting, or are we in that much of a deficit. Mr. Riley explained that this is just a request from the Airport Authority for next year. Mr. Longerbeam asked jfit were to make up a deficit, or was it being planned to be used for something else. Mr. Riley replied no, just for projects. Mrs. Shifller explained that the total airport operating capitol budget is 1.4 million dollars, which is $461,000 above last year. The current year has $104,000 budgeted from other localities and $84,000 from Frederick County, this is part of the current year, which is part of the 1.4 million. If you look at the difference which is the $461,000 over last year to the proposed budget, $59,000 is from il I I i rr [i Ii 1241 I Frederick County and $79,000 from other localities. Mr. Shickle asked for point of clarification in that Frederick County's commitment to the $1.4 million is $84,000 in the proposed budget. Mrs. Shifller replied that is correct and she has that as a transfer in the general operating fund. Mr. Riley explained that Robinson, Farmer and Cox would be making a formal presentation to the Board once their report is completed. Mr. Shickle referred to the technology number that was used of $1,634,800 and the technical training and staff development is $285,000. There seems to be $25,000 that is in both of these numbers. Mr. Malcolm attempted to explain this, but due to the fact that he did not come to the microphone the tape was not clear as to his explanation. Mr. Shickle replied that the figure of$I,634,800 was a correct number as all of his detailed information shows $25,000 less than that figure. Mr. Shickle continued to try to find clarification as he asked why $25,000 was included in both the $1,634,800 and $285,000 figure. Mr Malcolm did not agree with Mr. Shickle's observation. Mr. James Boyd attempted to further explain, but could not be heard as he was not at the microphone. Mr. Shickle asked about the $290,000 for the percentage of current salaries, merit reserve, and what this percentage is? Mr. Riley replied 4%. Mr. Shickle asked if any position upgrades were included in this figure. Mr. Riley replied no. Mr. Longerbeam stated that the total number of new positions in the total operating budget was three. Mr. Riley stated that is correct. Two in the treasurer's office and one in fire and rescue, which will be an upgrade from the present part-time position to full-time. Mr. Sager asked about the status of the two deputies within the Sheriff's Department and whether they were included. 242 Mr. Riley explained that those positions were in the Sheriff's supplemental request of five deputies and one administrative position. The Finance Committee placed two of those positions in the county budget and he had reduced those two back to zero during the budget deliberations. Mr. Sager stated that he wanted the two deputy positions restored as he feels they are as critical as any positions that are currently in the county at this time. Mr. Longerbeam proposed that the two positions slated for the Treasurer's office be reduced to one and two deputies be added to the Sheriff's Department and the assistant county administrator '0 be reinstated. Mr. Sager and Mr. Smith noted their agreement with this recommendation. Mr. Smith stated that it was his understanding that the Comp Board would also be funding a deputy position. Sheriff Williamson replied that was correct. Mr. Longerbeam reminded Mr. Riley about the monies that wOUld be needed for Mr. Ambrogi's office move. Mr. Shickle asked about the rent figure for Mr. Ambrogi's office, as to whether it would be a wash. Mr. Riley replied that was correct. Mr. Riley further explained that the two positions requested within the Treasurer's office was due to a reallocation by the state, which means funding will come from the state however there would be a supplement from the county for these two positions. Mr. Longerbeam stated that if in the future the state funds the two positions fine, but for now he only feels the county should supplement one, especially in light of other positions being cut. Mr. Sager asked about the upgrade of the secretarial position within the Fire & Rescue Department. Mr. Owens explained that this was funded as a part-time position and due to the workload and having the office covered from 8:00 AM. until 5: 00 P.M. he has requested this position be made full-time. Mr. Shickle asked Perry Silva, President of the Fire and Rescue Association if the volunteers felt this position would be support for the volunteer association. II 11243 Mr. Silva replied definitely. Mr. Sager inquired about the fencing at the Round Hill dumpster site. Mr. Strawsnyder explained that the fencing has helped in controlling illegal dumping and the fact that the fencing will have to wait at this particular location means that the control will not be there as it is at other fenced locations. Mr. Shickle inquired about the Winchester Rescue Squad funding, and whether this $20,000 should have been removed from this line item. r~ Mr. Riley explained that it was cut. $50,000 was cut from the fire companies in addition to the $20,000 that was going to be redistributed. Mr. Shickle explained that he was not in favor of decreasing the support to the Winchester Rescue Squad at this time. He would like to see the $20,000 put back into the budget until the issue is resolved dealing with the county and Winchester Rescue squad. Mr. Riley asked the Board for a decision on the rate for Personal Property Tax. Mr. Sager stated that he didn't realize it was an issue. Mr. Riley stated that it had hovered between 5 and 7.5 cents. Mr. Sager stated that he liked the latter figure real well. He realized to some there might not be that much difference, but he would like to see it at 7.5 cents. Mr. Smith stated that he too supported 7.5 cents. Mrs. Douglas stated that she would support 5 cents, but no lower. Mr. Sager moved to reduce personal property tax by 7.5 cents. Mr. Smith seconded the motion. Mr. Orndoff explained that he could not see how personal property tax could be cut based on the current county budget. He feels this is one of the fairest taxes that the county has. If this tax is reduced it will only have to be added to another. Ifit goes on real estate more individuals will be affected. Mr. Smith stated that he could not support reducing the personal property tax and increasing the real estate tax, this he could not do. He further stated that new cars go up an average of3% or better per year so we have to give the people in the county something. Mr. Orndoff stated that based on budget needs and school needs the real estate next year 244 could be increased as much as ten cents which will affect more people then personal property will. Mr. Sager clarified the dollar difference between 5 cents and 7.5 cents. Mr. Riley stated it was $100,000. Mr. Sager stated that last year he asked that personal property be reduced by 7.5 cents and it didn't get off the ground. He did state earlier in the meeting if it took 5 cents and the funding of two deputies he would agree to that, as he would compromise on 2.5 cents. Mr. Shickle stated that he felt it would be foolish for anyone to think that by reducing a high personal property tax rate now, that this will not end up affecting the real estate tax in the future. He feels the county will surely be looking a real estate tax increase next year, and that he would like to see the personal property tax lowered; however, under the circumstances he could not support reducing it anymore than 5 cents, he feels by reducing or not reducing it the real estate tax increase next year certainly makes that up and there is no point in hiding from that. The above motion to reduce the personal property tax by 7 .5 cents was defeated by the following recorded vote: James L. Longerbeam - Nay W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Nay Robert M. Sager - Aye Richard C. Shickle - Nay Charles W. Orndoff, Sr. - Nay Mr. Shickle moved and Mr. Smith seconded that the personal property tax rate be reduced by 5 cents. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: James L. Longerbeam - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Richard C. Shickle - Aye Charles W. Orndoff, Sr. - Nay Mr. Longerbeam stated that after doing some preliminary figuring, assuming that the school technology will be about 3 million dollars per year for the next five years also assuming the requests from the schools each year, based on their request for the last several years, along with some other requests he feels in five years the county could be looking at a real estate rate that will exceed a $1.20 cents. I' I' 11245 I I Mr. Orndoff asked Mr. Longerbeam ifhe had calculated any capitol in for new schools being built within that five years. Mr. Longerbeam replied yes he had. Mr. Smith asked Mr. Malcolm about the way the trend had been going ifit didn't calculate out to about a new school for the county about every two or three years. (Mr. Malcolm did not come to the podium to speak and could not be heard.) Mr. Sager moved to reduce the real estate tax rate by 1 cent making it 59 cents. Mr. Smith seconded the motion. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: James L. Longerbeam - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Richard C. Shickle - Aye Charles W. Orndoff, Sr. - Aye Mr. Riley explained that the requests of the school superintendent for a one time costs of being funded equal to $3.7 million this versus the previous amount of$2.6 million. The difference being that the 2.6 million is the technology money and leasing of the buses. The additional money is for items added by the school system such as buying out the existing bus leases, training and purchases of textbooks. Mr. Omdoffquestioned the buying out of leased buses and where could money be saved by doing this. Mr. Riley explained that by doing this the schools would be curbing the continuing cost of the lease payment. Mr. Riley stated that this budget also reflects the construction of a new elementary school with the cost of the project being $5.3 million. Mr. Shickle asked what the off set funding source was for this project. Mrs. Shiffler replied bond money. Mr. Sager asked what would the capacity be for this new school. Mr. Malcolm replied, but could not hear what he said. Mr. Shickle asked ifit had been determined at this time where this elementary school would be located. 246 Mrs. Bayliss asked Mr. Malcolm to please come to the microphone at this time as she was unable to hear what he was saying. Mr. Malcolm replied somewhere in the Back Creek District. He further explained that the total cost with everything would probably be close to $8 million. The $5.3 is what is showing in this years budget. Mr. Shickle asked Mr. Malcolm to outline for him, if this is approved, when the starting date might occur and also the completion date. Mr. Malcolm explained that if this is approved the school board would start immediately looking for a site, a location that would serve the school boards expansion needs. Mr. Shickle asked Mr. Malcolm if the Fall of 1999 would be a good target date. Mr. Malcolm replied, August of 1999 would be good. Mr. Smith asked about middle schools, noting that there haven't been any new ones built for some time. Mr. Malcolm explained that James Wood was converted and the capacity figures are showing that the county will probably be alright until the year 2003. Mr. Riley stated that $3 million has also been budgeted for additions to elementary schools. Mr. Malcolm explained that this would be for additions to Armel, Indian Hollow and Middletown. If an addition is going to be needed sometimes it proves to be more cost effective to do them all at one time rather than individually. He stated that Indian Hollow could be left for a while, but this will be determined once the cost figures are in. He further stated that the sand filter system at Indian Hollow is close to maxing out as it has just about reached its shelflife. He noted this may have to be done sooner, but is hoping it will last until expansion takes place at the school. Mr. Malcolm explained with the expansion of the elementary schools the population would ,be 725 to 750 pupils. Stonewall would not go to this size due to the limit placed on this school by the Health Department due to it having a drain field as it has to stay at between 500-550 pupils. Mr. Orndoff asked Mr. Malcolm if there was sufficient acreage at the Stonewall School to take care of any future expansion. Mr. Malcolm stated if expansion would become necessary you would have to look at acreage to the North of the school, which means additional land would have to be purchased. If I II , I I 11241 Mr. Orndoff stated that there is surveying going on in this area and if there is any interest it would seem to him that someone needs to check into it. This concluded any budget items for the schools. Mr. Riley stated that the figure is not clear at this point as far as the final number may be from the Comp Board on jail funding. Mr. Shickle asked what went up the State's funding or the county's funding. Mr. Riley replied the county's funding, which could be an additional $40,000. Mr. Shickle asked why the Comp Board took this stand with the Jail when the other Constitutional Offices are not affected this way. Mr. Fred Hildebrand, superintendent, explained this information had just been received and he did not want to speculate; however part of the reduction has to with the fact that the Comp Board did not fund pay performance this year as they have in the past. He stated at this point it appears the total amount will be $74,000 with Frederick County's share being about $32,000. He will be looking at other ways to reduce this amount in order that additional funds will not have to be requested. Mr. Shickle asked if the county had added new positions that were not approved by the Comp Board. Mr. Hildebrand replied no. Mr. Longerbeam stated that he could not understand how the State could continue to build additional prisons, but also continue to reduce local funding for jails, this to him makes no sense at all. Mr. Riley reminded the Board of the capitol project that will be taking place with regard to the Commonwealth Attorneys Office. Mr. Riley informed the Board of a study that is currently underway through Parks and Recreation on athletic field maintenance, county wide, that has not been resolved at this point and might have to be dealt with at year end. Mr. Shickle stated that it appeared to him that this work would be done by June 30 or at least the staff would like to have it done by then. Mr. Riley replied that he would like to encumber the money, but did not know ifit would be finished by June 30. 248 Mrs. Shiftler asked what she was to include in the 97-98 budget for the Commonwealth Attorney. Additional positions, construction exactly what? Mr. Shickle stated that was his question to Mrs. Shiffler. Mrs. Shiffler referred the questions to Mr. Ambrogi. Mr. Riley explained to Mr. Shickle it was assumed the position would have to be included in next years budget, and staff would attempt to work from fund balance on the capitol project. Mr. Riley stated his understanding from the Finance Committee is one position now, one position mid year based upon the Comp Board. Mr. Riley feels the Comp Board would probably pick up the professional position or part of it, but doubtful about the staff support. Mrs. Shiffler asked for direction as to whether she should wait for Comp Board funding or is she to include it. Mr. Sager stated that he did not feel she should wait, knowing the Comp Board. Mr. Shickle stated that his understanding is there will be two positions without Comp Board funding, and the County would anticipate increasing budget revenue for the Comp Board when they do forward the funding. Mr. Riley replied that is correct. Mr. Longerbeam asked if the Comp Board would be picking up the investigators position as well as the secretarial position. Mr. Riley stated that he knows they will not pick up the secretarial position, but is not sure what the Comp Board has indicated to Mr. Ambrogi. Mr. Ambrogi explained that the Comp Board has provisions for this, but all those positions go to the larger metropolitan areas. He feels the only position they will fund at this point is a juvenile justice special prosecutor that has been approved for July I, but they will not fund this position until January 1, 1998. The Comp Board does funding for paralegals, but usually it is for the larger jurisdictions. Mr. Smith asked Mr. Ambrogi whether he had been notified by the Comp Board as to exactly what funding he will receive on any of these positions. Mr. Ambrogi stated that these positions are requested every year. ii I I I I I 1249 Mr. Longerbeam asked Mr. Ambrogi ifhe was in agreement with the county funding out of fund balance the renovation of the office space and authorize one clerical position beginning in July. Mr. Ambrogi explained that the biggest concern he has at this point is the clerical position, after that would be the investigator followed by the prosecutor. Mr. Shickle asked Mr. Ambrogi what positions he felt would be funded by the Comp Board next year. Mr. Ambrogi replied that he knew the juvenile justice prosecutor would be funded, which will only start out as a Y2 position, and he feels the chances are pretty good for a part-time clerical position. Mr. Shickle asked Mr. Riley for clarification at this point. Mr. Longerbeam stated that the county would be renovating the office space and one clerical position, and iffunds are received from the Comp Board this will be applied to the position which in turn will reduce the county's contribution. Mr. Shickle stated that means the county will budget for one position starting July I, 1997 with the hope that the Comp Board will fund an additional position. Mr. Shickle asked Mr. Ambrogi at what point and time, if Comp Board approval is not received, does he plan to let the Board know that he does need this position. Mr. Ambrogi stated not until he has to as he has waited twenty years without it, hoping that he won't have to wait another twenty years. Mr. Riley made the Board aware of two items that were cut as follows: 1. $10,000 in drainage improvements under general engineering, which the county will probably have a need for. 2. Parks and Recreation has been reduced by $7,000 in the maintenance line item, which deals primarily with the caulking of both pool decks. Mr. Longerbeam gave a run down of the various amendments to the budget as of this date. Mr. Riley stated that all of these additions and deletions will be spelled out in the final budget resolution that will be coming to the Board on April 9. Mr. Shickle stated that at some point and time he would like to see the presentation by the historical society or EDC as he feels he is not as fully versed on this as he would like to be. '250 THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS TO COME BEFORE THIS BOARD, TillS MEETING IS HEREBY ADJOURNED. (