Loading...
2010-03-08 MinutesBOARD OF SUPERVISORS MINUTES March 8, 2010 0 Supervisors in Attendance: Mr. Daniel A. Gecker, Chairman Mr. James Holland, Vice Chairman Ms. Dorothy Jaeckle Mr. Arthur S. Warren Ms. Marleen K. Durfee Mr. James J. L. Stegmaier County Administrator School Board Members in Attendance Mr. David Wyman, Chairman Staff in Attendance: Ms. Janice Blakley, Clerk to the Board Mr. Kevin Bruny, Chief Learning Officer Ms. Debbie Burcham, Exec. Dir., Community Services Board Mr. Allan Carmody, Dir., Budget and Management Ms. Marilyn Cole, Asst. County Administrator Mr. Jonathan Davis, Real Estate Assessor Colonel Thierry Dupuis, Police Department Dr. Suzanne Fountain, Asst. Dir., Social Work Mr. Mike Golden, Dir., Parks and Recreation Mr. Donald Kappel, Dir., Public Affairs Mr. Rob Key, Director, General Services Ms. Debbie Leidheiser, Senior Advocate, Human Services Ms. Mary Lou Lyle, Acting Deputy County Admin., Management Services Mr. Mike Mabe, Director, Libraries Mr. Steven L. Micas, County Attorney Dr. William Nelson, Dir. Health Department Mr. Jay Payne, Asst. to Dep. County Administrator Sheriff Dennis Proffitt, Sheriff's Department Chief Edward Senter, Fire Department Ms. Sarah Snead, Acting Deputy County Admin., Human Services Mr. M. D. Stith, Jr., Deputy County Admin., Community Development Mr. Kirk Turner, Dir., Planning Mr. Scott Zaremba, Director of Human Resource Programs 10-149 03/08/10 Mr. Gecker called the regularly scheduled meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. 1. INVOCATION Colonel Thierry Dupuis, Chief of Police, gave the invocation. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chief Edward L. Senter, Jr., Fire and EMS, led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America. REQUESTS TO POSTPONE AGENDA ITEMS AND ADDITIONS, DELETIONS OR CHANGES IN THE ORDER OF PRESENTATION On motion of Ms. Durfee, seconded by Mr. Holland, the Board added Item 3.B., Closed Session Pursuant to § 2.2-3711(A)(7), Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, for consultation with legal counsel regarding Tetra v. Chesterfield County. Ayes: Gecker, Holland, Jaeckle, Warren and Durfee. Nays: None. 3. WORK SESSIONS 3.A. PROPOSED FY2011 BUDGET 3.A.1. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S PROPOSED BUDGET Mr. Stegmaier expressed appreciation to the Budget and Audit Committee members, other Board of Supervisors members, School Board Liaison Committee members, and all of the staff members who have assisted with the development of the proposed budget. He stated the employees have shown an enormous amount of creativity and innovation in finding ways to get the work done with restricted resources. He further stated the budget will better reflect a shared vision for the community's future. He stated the budget process has been challenging, but the county has refocused on the core mission. He further stated in the past government budgets have grown, and this is the county's second year in a row of shrinking the budget. He stated the years of constantly) rising income to the local government and continually adding,, new-and better services for the citizen's changes with this) budget. He further stated last year the county made' significant reductions in the budget and was able to become more efficient and restructured certain programs which preserved the level of service from the perspective of the customers. He stated with the leadership of the Budget and Audit Committee, the county has looked hard at programs and) what the role of government is and made some decisions about recommending which programs do not fit as core services. Help further stated the process has been made more complicated by' the uncertainty coming out of the General Assembly regarding the state budget. He stated each estimate received from the state on the revenues declines more than the previous estimate. He further stated due to the outstanding work of the budget staff there have been very few revisions to the county's revenue estimates. He stated for the first time in the county's history, a series of meetings were held last' fall with the public to hear their priorities for the budget. He further stated all of the preparation had led to a plan J J J 10-150 I~ 03/08/10' that maintains the most critical services; keeps Chesterfield an attractive community; and maintains the county's fiscal strength as a AAA bond rated locality. He stated the proposed budget is just one step in the process, which will include additional public and Board of Supervisors input. He further stated the proposal being put forward moves the county in the direction of getting on a sustainable footing for the long term. He stated next year's budget is likely to be another difficult budget. C C•7 Mr. Carmody presented a summary of the County Administrator's proposed FY2011 overall budget. He stated the economic decline has been handled in a multi-year approach in the budget process. He reviewed the priorities which were used as guideposts for developing the FY2011 plan. He stated the Board of Supervisors in prior years had the great foresight to slow the growth of government even before the rapid economic deterioration came to full light in the fall of 2008. He reviewed the general fund growth from FY2005 to FY2009. He stated FY2009 growth was limited to 2.2 percent and only added 19 positions which were primarily for public safety. He reviewed the FY2010 budget adjustments, which was 4.6 percent lower than FY2009. He stated there was a loss of 115 combined full- and part-time positions in FY2010 and included no pay increases for employees. He reviewed the strategies used to develop the FY2011 budget targets, which focused on community input. He stated there is a total general fund shortfall of $35.4 million. He reviewed the community's priorities of public safety, education and taxpayer burden. He stated while the state revenue reductions are overwhelming the school budget, locally generated funding for education is between 98 and 99 percent of those levels in FY2010. He further stated the county continues to be a low-cost provider in terms of the services which are made available to the citizens. He reviewed the general fund allocation of resources. He stated over 50 percent of the general fund is allocated to the school system and the public safety departments. He further stated in prior years the administrative and support portion of the budget has carried a larger proportion of the reductions. He provided details of some of the non-programmatic reductions the county has been able to identify such as renegotiating copier contracts. He reviewed some of the programmatic reductions which will be necessary such as closing the libraries one day per week. He stated the programmatic reductions will not reduce the quality of services received but will reduce the quantity. He further stated the county is entertaining proposals of working with athletic associations and non-profits to place the Parks and Recreation programs in a more sustainable position. He stated the county's economic development activity has been very strong considering the down economy with over $162 million in new investment announcements made last year. He further stated the Comprehensive Plan update will set the direction for the future sustainable growth and development in the county. He reviewed the strategies used in the budget to close the shortfall for FY2011. He provided a breakdown of the general fund expenditure allocations over the last two years. He reviewed the number of positions funded through the general fund from FY2008 to FY2011. He stated there has been a decrease of 152 full-time and 118 part-time positions since FY2009. He reviewed the overall consolidated budget and each category of expenditures. He stated the reduction in state aid accounts for more than 90 percent of the FY2010 10-151 03/08/10 - FY2011 reduction in education funding. He further stated staff is not expecting a quick recovery, but instead a prolonged recovery with FY2015 levels expected to be comparable to the FY2008 general fund levels. He reviewed the important budget milestones which lie ahead. In response to Ms. Jaeckle's request, Mr. Carmody stated he would provide an itemized list of savings from the administration and support line items. In response to Ms. Jaeckle's question, Mr. Carmody stated the $577.2 million includes the annual debt service numbers and the pay as you go contributions to the capital plan for the schools. In response to Ms. Durfee's questions, Mr. Carmody stated staff projects an increase in FY2014 and FY2015 because they do not believe real estate taxes and state revenue will stay in a negative territory that far out. He further stated any growth seen will be very modest. He stated there has been some bottoming out in the major revenue categories for the county. He further stated there is still decline in the nearer term with regard to real estate taxes which is the largest revenue in the general fund but a slow return to growth is expected through a combination of revaluation and new construction picking up. He stated it will be two years before the county sees any kind of growth in the general fund revenues. In response to Ms. Jaeckle's questions, Mr. Carmody stated FY2010 was the first budget to see a decline, but the actual revenues declined in FY2009 in comparison to FY2008. He provided the Board with the percentage of decreases in the budgets from FY2010 and FY2011. In response to Ms. Durfee's questions, Mr. Carmody stated staff believes there will be a return in real estate assessment growth. He further stated in the near term there will be further declines, particularly in commercial real estate, and when growth, assessments and sales tax revenue return to positive territory, there will be a blended rate of general fund growth between one and two percent. He stated there is a seven percent decline in commercial valuations, built into the FY2011 budget. Mr. Warren stated the state reduction in aid amounts to approximately a six-cent rate increase on the county's real estate tax rate. He further stated if the county was receiving federal assistance and state aid, there would be a surplus based on the current budget. Mr. Carmody stated staff is moving towards building a sustainable budget for the future. Ms. Durfee expressed appreciation to Mr. Carmody and staff for the amount of hard work which has been put in the county's budget and to Mr. Gecker for the direction for the Board. Mr. Carmody expressed appreciation to the Budget and Management staff for their hard work. In response to Mr. Gecker's questions, Mr. Carmody stated the magnitude of reductions, beyond those built into this proposal from the state is between $2.5 and $5 million J J J 10-152 03/08/10 depending upon how decisions are made in the General Assembly. He further stated the county is attempting to bridge state reductions locally in terms of public safety. He stated the proposed budget does not reflect any potential changes to the county's CIP. He further stated there is approximately $8 million worth of one-time funding being used in the FY2011 budget for the county. He stated staff's projections for FY2010 do not suggest there will be a substantial surplus. ^i Mr. Gecker stated one of the goals of the Board is to come up with a budget that is long-term sustainable and it appears we are coming up with a budget which will have to be revisited next year in order to fill the same holes as this year. He further stated the county will have similar problems in FY2012 as in FY2011. Mr. Carmody stated there will be ongoing issues into FY2012 and staff has made great efforts to reduce the county's use of reserve from $13.5 to $8.5 million. Mr. Gecker expressed appreciation to Mr. Carmody and staff for their hard work on the budget. Mr. Holland stated there will be difficulties in next year's budget. He further stated he expects the economy to continue to improve. Mr. Gecker expressed appreciation for Mr. Holland's optimism but stated the state is essentially borrowing from next year to fund this year. He further stated realistically there could be more reductions in aid to localities in 2012 and 2013. He stated the county needs to look at 2012 during this budget process with the assumption that things will not get better with the state budget. Ms. Durfee stated there has been an indication that there may be some growth in 2010 but 2011 is going to level off . She further stated the county needs to be guarded and cautious for 2014 and 2015 due to the uncertainty of the residential and commercial real estate revenue. Ms. Carmody stated staff agrees the county needs to be cautious in the future. 3.A.2. POLICE DEPARTMENT Colonel Dupuis provided an overview of the changes in the Police Department's budget from FY2010. He reviewed organizational accomplishments of the Police Department; calls for service; and selected incidents trends. He then reviewed the financial activity for FY2010 and proposed financial activity for FY2011 and FY2012 for the Police Department. He provided information on the impacts on the community due to the ongoing reductions in the Police Department. He reviewed the steps going forward for the Police Department, which include working on employee compensation; increasing ECC personnel to meet workload demands; increasing officer per capita ratio to fill patrol beats, and enhancing and creating additional units to meet community needs. He then reviewed the financial activity for FY2010 and proposed financial activity for FY2011 and FY2012 for Animal Control. He reviewed the ongoing impacts from the 10-153 03/08/10 FY2010 budget and the proposed FY2011 targets. He then reviewed the organizational accomplishments of Animal Control. In response to Ms. Durfee's question, Colonel Dupuis stated the elimination of patrol officer positions in the budget will affect the Police Department's ability to add an extra beat in the county and eliminate flexibility with staffing. Mr. Warren commended Colonel Dupuis and the Police Department for being ranked 9th in the nation for National Night Out. Colonel Dupuis stated the Police Department has tremendous support of the community. Mr. Holland expressed appreciation for the outstanding work the Police Department has done in finding efficiencies. In response to Mr. Holland's question, Colonel Dupuis stated the Police Department partners with other localities for training. He further stated it is "give and take" across the region in regards to training. Mr. Gecker expressed appreciation for the presentation. There was a ten-minute recess. Reconvening: 3.A.3. FIRE AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT Chief Senter presented an overview of the changes from the FY2010 budget for Fire and Emergency Medical Services. He reviewed the mission and vision statements and the focus for the department. He reviewed the number of emergency incidents; average response times; Fire and Life Safety activities; and accomplishments for the department. He reviewed the FY2010 reductions and the steps taken by the department to meet those reductions. He then. reviewed the FY2011 budget process and targets for the department. He reviewed the cumulative reductions for the department for FY2010 and FY2011. He provided details of the EMS Revenue Recovery Program. He stated to continue delivering quality customer service, the Fire Department needs to maintain a reliable, serviceable fire apparatus fleet; maintain up-to- date equipment and technology; and maintain, replace, and build new facilities. He reviewed the timeline for on-going fire apparatus replacement needs and the fire apparatus purchase history. He stated the lack of apparatus replacement will negatively impact the ISO rating the Fire Department has achieved. He reviewed the FY2011 unfunded expenses and discussed potential service delivery impacts throughout the county. He then reviewed the outstanding needs for FY2012 and beyond, which include restoring FY2010 and FY2011 reductions; maintaining competitive salaries; facilities; improvement of response times/reliability; and staffing of facilities. In response to Ms. Jaeckle's question, Chief Senter stated the Bensley-Bermuda Rescue Squad does help alleviate some of the calls to the stations which were counting on the Harrowgate Station for relief. J J J 10-154 03/08/10 In response to Ms. Durfee's questions, Chief Senter stated the annual funding needs of $1.9 to $2.3 million will allow the Fire Department to level out the funding needs for apparatus. He further stated in FY2011 the Fire Department will be able to replace 3 units and in FY2012 there is no funding for apparatus replacement. He stated the apparatus funding problem is not going to be solved in one to two ., .. years. Mr. Holland expressed appreciation for the hard work of the Fire Department in finding efficiency savings. He stated during a recent Budget and Audit Committee meeting, it was indicated a system is needed to ensure there is adequate funding available for apparatus replacement. In response to Mr. Holland's question, Chief Senter stated the $2.3 million addition to the EMS Revenue Recovery program is moving funding from previous years' reserves for replacement of a heavy rescue vehicle and also accounts for several ambulances which have been purchased between FY2009 and FY2010. He further stated the increase also accounts for. approximately $1 million from increases in EMS fees. Mr. Warren congratulated Chief Senter on the EMS Revenue Recovery Program and how well it is run. In response to Mr. Warren' certain amount is written the EMS Revenue Recovery program, which helps fund make other enhancements. Board with data regarding past years. s question, Chief Senter stated a off each year. He further stated Program has been an effective the replacement of equipment and He stated he would provide the revenue recovery write-offs for 3.A.4. SHERIFF'S OFFICE Sheriff Proffitt presented an overview of the changes from the FY2010 budget. He reviewed the state funding estimates for the Sheriff's Office. He then reviewed the strategies used to address the funding shortfall which include re- alignment of operations duty posts to decrease overtime; reducing vehicle fuel expenditures; and reducing electricity usage and expenditures. affect the senior programs. In response. to Ms. Jaeckle's question, Sheriff Proffitt stated the reductions made in the Sheriff's Office will not Mr. Gecker expressed appreciation to Sheriff Proffitt for the refreshing presentation. He stated it is nice to have all of the employees in the department pitching in to meet the funding shortfalls. 3.B CLOSED SESSION PURSUANT TO SECTION 2.2-3711(A)(7), CODE OF VIRGINIA, 1950, AS AMENDED, FOR CONSULTATION WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING TETRA V. CHESTERFIELD COUNTY On motion of Mr. Holland, seconded by Ms. Durfee, the Board went into Closed Session, pursuant to Section 2.2-3711(A)(7), 10-155 03/08/10 Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, for consultation with legal counsel regarding Tetra v. Chesterfield County. Ayes: Warren, Gecker, Jaeckle, Holland and Durfee. Nays: None. Reconvening: On motion of Mr. Holland, seconded by Ms. Durfee, the Board adopted the following resolution: WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors has this day adjourned into Closed Session in accordance with a formal vote of .the Board and in accordance with the provisions of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and WHEREAS, the Virginia Freedom of Information Act effective July 1, 1989 provides for certification that such Closed Session was conducted in conformity with law. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the Board of Supervisors does hereby certify that to the best of each member's knowledge, i) only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements under the Freedom of Information Act were discussed in the Closed Session to which this certification applies, and ii) only such public business matters as were identified in the Motion by which the Closed Session was convened were heard, discussed, or considered by the Board. No member dissents from this certification. The Board being polled, the vote was as follows: Ms. Durfee: Aye. Ms. Jaeckle: Aye. Mr. Warren: Aye. Mr. Holland: Aye. Mr. Gecker: Aye. 4. ADJOURNMENT On motion of Ms. Durfee, seconded by Mr. Holland, the Board adjourned at 8 : 4 8 p . m . to Wednesday, March 10 , 2 010 , at 3 : 0 0 p.m. in the Public Meeting Room. Ayes: Gecker, Holland, Jaeckle, Warren and Durfee. Nays: None. J J J -____ _ _~_ c5~ G ,~~_ mes .L. Ste aier Daniel A. Gecker County Administrator Chairman 10-156 03/08/10