Albemarle County, VA
Home MenuGovernment » Finance and Budget » Budget » Current Budget - FY 25
FY 24 Budget Questions & Answers
Budget Questions and Answers are used to respond to Board of Supervisors questions and requests during the budget deliberation process. Budget Questions and Answers for the Fiscal Year 2024 budget process are listed below.
Expand/Contract Questions and Answers
1. What percent of General Fund revenues comes from state and federal sources? And does that include American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding?
State and federal revenue together make up 9% of General Fund revenues (7% State and 2% Federal). ARPA funding and related uses is accounted for outside the General Fund in what is called a Special Revenue Fund. A Special Revenue Fund is commonly used when accounting for funds that have unique restrictions on the use of the funding and higher level reporting requirements.2. Slide 13 of the County Executive’s budget presentation notes a 6.8% increase in value of social services value. Clarify what is meant by value?
This refers to the total monetary value of the benefits programs year over year.- Jefferson Madison Regional Library (JMRL) is soon kicking off a strategic planning process for FY 25-29. That process will include community engagement and include questions about extended hours and services at branches. JMRL plans to synthesize that feedback along with collected circulation, demographic, and peer library data into a plan for additional hours and services. At that point, JMRL can present the plan to funding jurisdictions as part of a FY 25 budget request, alongside other service priorities such as JMRL’s workforce stabilization efforts.
4. Page 43 states “Local tax dollars will not be used to make up for losses of inter-governmental aid without first reviewing the program and its merits as a budgetary increment.” Are there examples where this review process has been applied to the proposed budget?
There are three areas of the budget that are impacted directly by a reduction in federal revenue:
- American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding is intended for one-time costs based on the U.S. Treasury’s Final Rule, the Board of Supervisors’ framework for spending ARPA funding, and the County’s adopted Financial Management Policies. Because of the one-time nature of ARPA funding, projects were generally not considered to be continued in the FY 24 budget process, or if so, on case-by-case basis. Two programs have been identified as a need for ongoing funding in FY 24 Recommended Budget:
Department of Human and Social Services: The County’s ARPA State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF) and ARPA Reserve Fund have both funded Emergency Relief funding during the pandemic. The need for this service is ongoing and aligns to the Board’s Strategic Plan Goal 1 “Safety & Well Being.” $260,000 is recommended in FY 24 for emergency assistance funding.
Department of Finance & Budget: The budget recommends locally funding one position that was previously funded by ARPA to continue grant analysis, compliance, and administration services. While ARPA administration and implementation will continue in FY 24, this change is being made now to prioritize compliance. This position will continue efforts in grants such as the successful awards in the past year from Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity (RAISE), Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP) and the Stormwater Local Assistance Fund (SLAF), which are augmenting services related to Three Notched Trail planning, Sugar Hollow access, and the stream health at Biscuit Run Park, respectively.
- Fire Rescue: As the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) I & II grants wrap up in the coming years, the County will begin to fund those positions locally in the General Fund. The FEMA SAFER grants have allowed the County to better staff systemwide and spread out the local budget impact over multiple fiscal years. Discontinuing these positions at the end of grant funding would have major service impacts to the fire rescue system’s service levels. The use of FEMA SAFER funds to support Fire Rescue staffing is connected to the Board’s Strategic Plan Goal 1 “Safety & Well Being.”
- American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding is intended for one-time costs based on the U.S. Treasury’s Final Rule, the Board of Supervisors’ framework for spending ARPA funding, and the County’s adopted Financial Management Policies. Because of the one-time nature of ARPA funding, projects were generally not considered to be continued in the FY 24 budget process, or if so, on case-by-case basis. Two programs have been identified as a need for ongoing funding in FY 24 Recommended Budget:
5. The county has been very successful in winning grants in recent years. How do planned grant requests and related grant-matching requirements/related personnel and other expenses appear in the budget? (E.g., SAFER grants) Are there exceptions for budgetary purposes?
The grants listed on page 237-238 of the FY 24 Recommended budget are those that will have appropriation authority as of July 1 of the new fiscal year, once the budget is appropriated by the Board of Supervisors in May. All other grants during the year are appropriated in full once awarded as supplemental appropriations. These grants are also reported within the quarterly financial report to the Board of Supervisors. For grants that cross fiscal years, those are re-appropriated annually pursuant the Board-approved Resolution of Appropriations, which currently delegates this re-appropriation authority to the County Executive.6. Is the classification/compensation study still expected in time for planning for the FY 2024 budget or are net impacts accounted for in the budgeted costs, regardless of where the study might show relative under/over compensation?
The FY 24 budget includes $1.4 million in the Salary & Benefits Reserve that is intended to support implementation of the Classification and Compensation Study. County staff are currently working with the consultant to finalize specific recommendations. Preliminary review of the study indicates that the $1.4 million will cover implementation costs. Additional discuss on Workforce Stabilization is planned at the March 29 budget work session.
7. What is the value of deferred value and taxes related to the Use Value Taxation (also referred to as “Land Use”) program?
8. What are the ACPS studies completed/in progress/planned to date (as part of LRPAC recommendations)?
Study Name
Status
Link
Mountain View Study
Complete
Lambs Lane Master Plan
Complete
AHS/WAHS Master Plan
Complete
Long Range Planning Advisory Committee (LPPAC) 2021 Recommendations
Complete
Middle School Study
RFP was published in December 2022; proposals due 1/23/23
NA
9. How do we distinguish Maintenance projects from Renovations projects? Is there a way to restructure this so that smaller renovations for aging buildings is funded as part of baseline maintenance programs?
ACPS defines building renovation projects as projects that add value to existing buildings through major improvements. Examples of improvements can include:
●Classroom modernization
●Daylighting
●Casework/cabinetry Upgrades
●Art and Music Classroom / Media Center Renovations
●Cafeteria/Kitchen Improvements
●Bathroom Renovations
●Hallway Improvements
●New Exterior and Interior Finishes
●Interior and Exterior Door Replacement
●Reconfiguration of spaces to improve function or efficiency
●Signage and Wayfinding Improvements
●Outdoor Learning Areas
●Technology Upgrades
●Environmental Upgrades
Other major maintenance work that extends the useful life of facilities is considered building maintenance, and funded as a recurring project.
Maintenance projects improve, exchange or replace building components that are at or near the end of their useful life. Such components include roofs; electrical, mechanical, and plumbing equipment; pavement rehabilitation; and flooring replacement. The purpose of these projects is to protect the County’s investment and minimize future maintenance and replacement costs. To be classified as a maintenance project, a project must have an interval between expenditures of at least five years.
If we were to include smaller renovations as part of baseline maintenance programs, the cost of the maintenance program would increase greatly. This would present the same dilemma we currently face, in that renovations would need to be prioritized ahead of other, larger capacity projects.
Description
ES #1 Cost
Notes
Design
$3,602,903
Site Costs
$5,370,000
Estimate is based on a fit test study that was performed by an A/E that factors in earthwork, rock excavation, site utilities, landscaping, and other needed exterior improvement costs (i.e. parking and sidewalks).
Building Costs
$26,356,069
Total Construction Costs
$31,726,069
LEED Design Principles & Certification
$1,903,564
Will be required moving forward because of HB2001, which takes effect on 7/1/23; We have not yet done a project under this new law – we’ve been advised by A/Es to assume ~6% of construction costs
FF&E/IT
$2,284,018
Contingency
$4,623,801
Total Project Costs
$44,140,355
Note: ES#2 costs are similar with an assumed 5% annual inflation rate.
Redistricting Studies will be conducted to determine the exact boundaries for these schools, which will include the following guiding principles.
●Attendance areas will serve the district for at least 3-5 years with a goal of 5-7 years
●Attendance areas will be largely contiguous
●Walk areas for each school will be considered
●Transportation routes will be as efficient as possible, giving consideration to minimizing ride times within acceptable parameters.
●Neighborhoods will be assigned to the same school whenever possible.
●Greater demographic balance amongst impacted schools will be strived for where feasible.
●Making exceptions for existing students will be considered by the Board on a study by study basis.
Mountain View District: When Elementary School #1 is built in the Mountain View district, the boundary would be split into two, creating two PreK-5 schools of similar size.
Northern Feeder Pattern: In the first phase, a portion of students will be moved out of Baker-Butler Elementary School and placed in one or more other NFP schools to partially relieve the overcrowding at Baker-Butler. Where possible, new development areas (with no current students) will be redistricted to minimize the number of students being moved. When Elementary School #2 is built, the first phase boundary changes will be expanded further and the full recommendations of the Redistricting Study will be implemented. The goal is for students to be redistricted only one time between the two phases. The Study will include consideration of all NFP elementary schools.
12. Please provide the details of operating impacts of High School Center 2 and a new elementary school.
Operating costs are determined by estimating the number of additional positions that will be needed, according to our staffing standards. The additional positions are the net new positions, assuming that students will be redistricted from one building to another, and staff numbers will follow the redistricted students. In addition, new positions required due to the growing enrollment are not included, as these costs must be considered even without the construction of a new building.
An average salary cost is applied to the net additional positions. For example, a counselor costs approximately $90,000 on average. We apply the same logic for administrators, custodial staff, and other staff. Other costs for utilities and maintenance are determined by square footage. The total operating impact is a general estimate at the current time, and in this presentation, no average increase was factored in. These costs are refined each year alongside the annual budget development process.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1vGTGGaF5ycZH7TKVNddFOWjDeQKUQsdwaPvyahrASTo/edit?usp=sharing
When comparing operating costs for a new elementary school versus a new high school center, a high school center’s net operating costs will be higher. A high school center will draw students from three comprehensive schools, so there is no significant reduction in staffing anticipated at the three comprehensive high schools, particularly with administrative staffing. When building a new elementary school however, a significant number of students will be moved out of an existing elementary school, which will result in a reduction of staffing at the existing school.
13. Please provide more background on the school construction competitive grant program from the state.
The Board of Education approved guidelines for the School Construction Assistance Program competitive grants at its November meeting but directed DOE staff to work with the Office of Attorney General to incorporate additional language allowing projects beginning construction on or after July 1, 2022, to be eligible to apply for grant funding. Draft language in response to the Board’s request is under review by OAG staff, and DOE staff are completing the online application divisions will use to apply for funding. The open application period is expected to be announced in January by Supt’s. Memo beginning the window for divisions to apply for grant funding.
Additional State Budget details are linked here.
The School Division received $2,725,262 in grant funding for HVAC projects through the American Rescue Plan Act Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund (CSLFRF). The grant requires 100% local match. Funding for the School Indoor Air Quality Project was combined with the School Maintenance Replacement Program to allow flexibility to manage the existing systems and projects currently in the CIP for replacement while also drawing down approved CSLFRF Revenue to help offset the costs.
15. What are the financial benefits and drawbacks for the purchase and operations of electric school buses?
Please see the documents linked below outlining the varying benefits with the following scenarios:
●Scenario 1: Purchase Incentives and Social Cost of Carbon
●Scenario 2: Purchase Incentives
●Scenario 3: No Purchase Incentives and Social Cost of Carbon
●Scenario 4: Operational Costs Only (No Purchase Incentives, No Social Cost of Carbon)
Link: Scenario Details
Slides from March 8, 2023 Work Session:
This first slide explains where approximately 97% of the growth in the General Fund is going, as follows:
- $14.6 million increase to Public School operations, which is the largest expense in the County’s General Fund
- $12.5 million for the workforce stabilization category – the items this category includes are noted on the following slide:
- $8.1 million (2nd row of first slide, combined) for School and County Government capital and debt. Like residents, the County Government and Public Schools are in an environment of increased borrowing costs and project costs. For the same projects that the Board approved last year in the 5-year CIP, due to the increasing project costs driven by increases in construction labor costs and increases in materials costs and increases in the cost of borrowing and debt service due to rising interest rates, the cost to build those same projects planned for FY24-27 has increased by $38.4 million, from just one year ago.
The 3rd slide following illustrates how no change in the tax rate will also generate additional revenue in FY 23. These revenues are recommended to support the capital and debt program, for the previous reasons noted, as well as be responsive to the Board’s strategic objective related to housing. These strategies provide funding for increased costs without having to slow down progress or scale back projects to meet the Board’s strategic priorities.
17. What is the impact of increasing the net worth limit for the Real Estate Tax Relief for the Elderly and Disabled program?
The County Executive’s Recommended Budget recommends increasing the income threshold from $75,100 to $83,850 to match HUD’s 80% area median income level. Using 2022 data, 95 applicants, which is 13% of the total applications, will benefit from the increased income threshold. This has a budget impact of $125,000 and is included in the FY 24 Recommended Budget.
The Board asked staff to analyze the possible impact of raising the net worth threshold. The net worth threshold was last set at $200,000 in 2007. Very limited data is available to estimate the number of newly eligible people by increasing the net worth threshold, though we know:
- In 2022, only 9 applicants, or 1% of the total applications, had a net worth over $200,000. At least 8 applicants would become eligible if the net worth threshold is increased to $250,000.
- While most applicants are well below the current threshold (68% less than $50k, 84% total less than $100k, $95% below $150k), it is reasonable to conclude raising this limit may generate more applications than currently received.
- This change would have a projected impact of $125,000 and is not included in the Recommended Budget. Increasing relief beyond the FY 24 Recommended Budget will require additional revenue to fund it or expenditure adjustments elsewhere in order for the budget to remain balanced.
- Alternatively, the Board could keep income levels the same and increase the net worth threshold with no total budget impact.
Assessments work is completed throughout the year, but the valuation models are updated in September and subsequently calibrated and finalized through December. The appraisal staff validates sales as they occur during the year. Validation is the foundation of the reassessment process since sales determine market value. Validation is the process of confirming sale quality. Factors evaluated include but are not limited to:
a. Was the sale an arm’s length transaction or between related parties?
b. Was the sale at market or was it distressed?
Additionally, while validating sales, staff confirms property descriptions through site visits and/or by listings available online. Newly discovered information is changed in the property record and used to determine the new assessment.
Since it is possible that the market will continue to change after September, staff will continue to monitor sales and adjust the model as necessary through the end of the year. The date of value is January 1st but with consideration of sales throughout the year to support the values.
In September, assessment to sales ratio reports are generated to determine the difference between our prior year model and current sales. For example, if the market increased 5% over the previous year, then we would see a median ratio of 95% at this point. This implies that the assessments determined in the previous year are at approximately 95% of the sales prices of properties that sold in the year after the assessments were created. This signifies that we must increase the model by 5% to bring the assessments up to 100%, as required by the Code of Virginia. Please note – in a decreasing market displaying a 102% median ratio would signify the need to adjust the model downwards by 2%. There were decreasing markets from 2009 to 2013 in which the model parameters were reduced, but historically the real estate market increases over time.
The model used to calculate property assessments depends on the type of property. The improvement portion of single-family homes and properties with up to four units are valued through a residential mass-appraisal model. The Residential Value Model Description explains all parts of the model, how it works, and the appendix includes all tables used in the valuation. This document is available on the Real Estate webpage. Since this model only values the improvements, changes are also made to land rates, if needed, based on an analysis of land sales. Residential land is valued by the homesite plus residual land per acre.
Commercial property values may be based on the income that the property generates if it is the type of property that is usually leased. In this case, more weight is given to the income approach to value. If a commercial property is generally owner occupied, then there is either no income to analyze or few to no sales of properties that are rented of that type to determine market information needed to turn income into a value (capitalization rates or multipliers). In this case, the cost approach is mainly relied upon to determine value. Both approaches are calibrated by an analysis of sales. Commercial land is valued by the square foot or acre.
County staff follow requirements from the Code of Virginia § 58.1 and standards as promulgated by the International Association of Assessing Officers (IAAO) as required by the Code of Virginia. IAAO has a Standard on Mass Appraisal, Standard on Ratio Studies, Standard on Verification and Adjustment of Sales, and other publications for guidance. The organization also provides education through structured courses and designations. There is minimal flexibility when following these guidelines appropriately. Some data is quantitative and includes counts of bathrooms or square footage of a building. Some data is qualitative and includes the grade or condition of a building.
When working with qualitative data, guidance is provided to appraisal staff so that we will get similar results from various appraisers. A grade guide has been developed that defines the characteristics of homes for each grade. This guide is also available on the Real Estate website. The experience of the appraiser is also important; therefore, the most experienced appraisers are assigned to the properties with more intricate finishes. Furthermore, appraisers collaborate with each other to reliably determine the grade of a property.
Condition is another qualitative criterion that has been defined to provide guidance to appraisers. A property that is in average condition is the normal condition you would expect for a property of that age. A new building would be expected to be in new condition, and a 50-year-old building would be expected to be in a typical condition for a 50-year-old building. Good condition means that upgrades have been made, which typically include kitchen and bath renovations. An entire extensive renovation would be considered in excellent condition. The conditions below average are fair, poor, and very poor. These conditions represent an escalating amount of disrepair and/or damage that is greater than what you would expect in the average home. These have also been standardized.
Flexibility is not desirable in an appraisal or assessment since the objective is to provide an impartial, independent evaluation of the property’s market value.
In 2022, there were 1,988 properties that sold for which reassessment was the reason for the value change. This excludes any sales of properties that were new construction or new parcels for 2023. The average change of the reassessment sales properties was 18.2%. The average change of all properties for the 2023 reassessment was 13.46%. Any grouping of properties will have a different average change, but every sale property would have been reviewed and is more likely to have their descriptions updated causing a difference in the assessment adjustment. Therefore, it is not unusual for the average change for the group of sale properties to vary from the average for all properties. The number of changes we find on inspection of the sales is why our 20% review of properties per year is crucial. This review presents the opportunity to confirm the description of all properties every five years to keep them up to date and minimize this difference.
The Core Systems Modernization (CSM) project includes both one-time capital costs and ongoing operating costs. The total capital cost of the project is expected to total $12 million over five years (FY 23 – FY 27). This cost includes hardware, software, project management, technical advisory, data conversion, and staff fortification costs required for the implementation of the Human Resources Information System (HRIS), Community Development tracking system, financial system, tax billing system, and Customer Relationship Management (CRM) system.
Ongoing operating costs are staggered as new systems come online and are anticipated to total $2.2 million per year once fully implemented. This includes the cost of annual maintenance contracts and nine additional positions for ongoing operational support of the systems. Of these positions, six were approved in FY 23, two are recommended in FY 24, and one is planned to be requested for FY 25.
24. On page 81, it appears that (Offender Aid & Restoration) OAR was lowered by $26.7k under ABRT, but increased for specific purposes under “Other Health and Welfare Agencies” by about $33k. And the Restorative Justice Program was funded at $30k. Could you clarify?
To provide a clearer picture of the funding changes for the various Offender Aid and Restoration (OAR) programs, the below chart shows all 6 programs for which OAR applied for County funding support. As illustrated by the chart, there was no funding decreases recommended for any of the OAR programs, but rather only changes to which review process through which the programs were evaluated, and where the recommended funding appears on page 147 of the Recommended Budget document.
Prior to FY 24, only the Criminal Justice Planner program was reviewed as a “contractual agency,” while the Local Probation and Pretrial Services Programs were reviewed through the Agency Budget Review Team (ABRT) process, and thus received the standard formulaic increases that were consistent across all ABRT agencies. Funding recommendations for each rating level for the FY 23, and FY 24 ABRT, processes were consistent with, and were guided by, past precedent and previous funding formulas used for ABRT program recommendations. In preparation for the FY 24 ABRT process, staff evaluated feedback and formulated recommendations for process improvements. Those improvements included: evaluating the methodology used in determining the appropriate funding levels for both existing and new agencies; as well as evaluating all responding agencies and programs to see if the services provided are better suited to be reviewed through a different process, such as the contractual review process.
As was consistent with prior fiscal year requests from OAR, the FY 24 Local Probation Program funding request was based upon the percentage of clients served from each locality. Per data provided by OAR, historically Albemarle County residents comprised approximately 18-25% of the local probation population, but the County funding awarded to OAR did not equate to that proportion of the local funding received by OAR. The County funding recommendation for FY 24 for the Local Probation program is equivalent to the estimated proportion of County resident clients, as compared to the overall number of clients. This increase will bring the amount of County funding proportional to the amount of funding received by OAR from other localities as compared to their percentages of the overall clients.
The Albemarle-Charlottesville Restorative Justice Program (ACRJP) did not request funding in FY 23, however the program received an “exemplary” rating by the ABRT process and showed direct alignment with the County Human Service goal of “Provide support services for survivors of abuse, neglect, trauma, or violence. The “exemplary” ABRT rating and direct goal alignment resulted in the program being recommended to receive $30,000 in funding in FY24 which is equivalent to 50% of the program request. Funding recommendations for each rating level for the FY 24 ABRT process were consistent with, and were guided by, past precedent and previous funding formulas used for ABRT program recommendations. Additional details on the ACRJP can be found on pages 147-148, and 155 or the Recommended budget document.
25. Was the Public School system required to keep federal COVID-19 dollars out of the base budget, as described that the County Government did?
Federal grants generally require detailed accounting and tracking of revenues and expenditures and are thus maintained in a Special Revenue Fund, outside of the school operating budget (School Fund). One-time COVID funding was accounted for in separate funds for the same reasons, although it was not explicitly required. No one-time COVID funding was included in the base budget.26. When will the County receive the CATEC funding from the City? How will the County know the use of the funding?
The total amount of $5.3M is payable in seven equal installments over a seven year period of time. The first installment will be due at closing, currently anticipated during FY 24.
The School Board will request and the Board of Supervisors will appropriate these funds either as part of a future budget or supplemental appropriation. As a one-time funding source, it would be appropriate for a one-time use under the County’s Financial Management Policies.
- The park at Rivanna Village is not completely built, but upon completion, the park will be dedicated to the County in fee simple. According to the developer, this is anticipated to happen at the end of this calendar year. In the master plan, there is an area approximately 150’x 230’ and two additional areas/approximately 6,000 SF (60’ x 100’) and the other is 6,921 SF (approximately 60’ x 120’). All areas can accommodate youth soccer practice and games which could take a couple of growing seasons to allow the turf to establish before formal play could occur, but the master plan does not reference this area as a soccer field.
28. Provide more details on slide 47 of the March 8th budget work session, which discusses the ABRT process.
The Agency Budget Review Team (ABRT) consists of volunteer citizens and County staff members whose charge is to review funding requests from community non-profit agencies using a team approach to reach consensus on rating each program. The work of the teams is facilitated by a temporary County staff member who serves as the facilitator of both teams and provides oversight for the entire process, including ensuring a common approach to review and rating. This person is supported by other County staff as needed and designated by the Departments of Human and Social Services and Finance and Budget.
Albemarle County’s ABRT, comprised of citizen volunteers and local government staff, spend many hours reviewing and scoring the agency/program applications individually before meeting as teams to discuss and reach consensus on a rating. Potential conflicts of interest are discussed at the orientation and addressed in the review process. Team members review and rate applications individually and collectively. Volunteers dedicated a total of eight hours to orientation and team meetings. They reviewed and rated applications on their own, in preparation for team meetings. It is estimated that the review and rating of applications required up to one hour per application, totaling 12-15 hours in that process. Each volunteer thus donated 20 or more hours of their time as participants on ABRT. A total of 44 program applications from 36 agencies were reviewed. Two mixed teams of community volunteers and staff reviewed and rated 23 program applications, including all new or previously unfunded applications. A separate team of only staff reviewed another 21 program applications from those programs that had received exemplary ratings in the two previous years.
Funding recommendations are not made by the ABRT, whose role is simply to review and rate applications. Recommendations for funding amounts continue to be made by County staff in the context of the overall County budget development process, taking ABRT application ratings into account. Funding is subject to the availability of funds.
29. Please provide more information on the status of the Mental Health/Crisis Program HARTs (Human Services Alternative Response Team)
History/Intention
Motivated by an increase in service calls for mental health and substance abuse concerns, the Departments of Fire Rescue, Police, and Human and Social Services have partnered to create a dedicated team to respond to behavioral health calls for service. The team will consist of a police officer, a paramedic, and a human services supervisor to take advantage of public safety, medical assessment, and clinical support expertise for every call. The team will work to de-escalate and stabilize the situation and link the community member to a supportive, community-based behavioral health service, including the new Crisis Intervention Team Assessment Center (CITAC) at Region Ten. Anticipated outcomes include reduced transports to the emergency room and jail, decreased repeat calls, and increased well-being.
Status
A paramedic from Fire Rescue and human services supervisors from Social Services have been identified and interviews are in progress to identify the police representative. Current staff are attending co-responder and community paramedicine conferences to gather best practice information. The team will begin responding to calls regularly after the Police Department member has been identified.
Bennett’s Village requested funding for phase 1 construction of an all-inclusive accessible playspace at Pen Park. More background on the program from their application as follows and is also available on their website, bennettsvillage.org:
“Inspired by the memory of a little boy named Bennett with Spinal Muscular Atrophy who loved to play but found many recreational spaces inaccessible, Bennett’s Village is building an all-abilities, multigenerational playspace at Pen Park. This is a one-of-a-kind, innovative playspace where people of all abilities and ages can play, explore, and learn. We’ve specifically designed Bennett’s Village to be a place where people – with service animals, auditory sensitivities and deficits, visual impairments, developmental delays, as well as those with a full range of abilities – can play together. Bennett’s Village is mindfully being designed for people of all ages and is changing the way our community views inclusion.
The playspace will be built in stages. Bennett’s Village is requesting funds for Phase 1: The Accessible Treehouse. In the Treehouse, family and friends will be able to play together, many for the first time in their lives. The selected location of the accessible treehouse is deliberate – the woods behind and below the existing playground at Pen Park are already utilized by children without mobility challenges. The steep incline makes it difficult for people to access and is impossible for anyone with a stroller, wheelchair, or other mobility aid. With the construction of the Treehouse, Bennett’s Village will provide inclusive access to a multi-leveled playspace for all ages, regardless of their ability level, and demonstrate the value of inclusive design.”
The following staff served on this review team, with their department noted.
-
Emily Kilroy, County Executive’s Office
-
Jesse Brookins, Office of Equity & Inclusion
-
Ashley Perry Hernadorena, Economic Development Office
-
Amy Smith, Parks & Recreation Department
-
Abbey Stumpf, Communications & Public Engagement
-
32. How are those team members chosen - are there professional artists from various disciplines on this team?
This team does not include any professional artists. These positions were selected because their departments represent a diverse group of perspectives of services that engage with the community.33. Is the Board given a list of everyone who applied, so that they are aware of those applications that were not funded?
The following agencies are shown on an updated page 206 of the budget document, table is below. Not shown are the 4 agencies whose funding application was not received due to a technical issue on the County’s end and under subsequent review:
-
Lighthouse Studio - $2,500 added to the FY 24 Proposed Budget on March 15
-
Virginia Theatre Festival – $2,500 added to the FY 24 Proposed Budget on March 15
-
Hatton Ferry – recommendation to be presented March 22
-
Albemarle Charlottesville Historical Society – recommendation to be presented March 22
-
The following scoring criteria were developed by the Office of Equity & Inclusion in 2020.
-
Service to a Broad Population
-
Service to Youth
-
Quantity of citizens served
-
Quantity of Albemarle County Residents Served
-
Measurability of Populations Served
-
Contribution to Economic Development
-
Contribution to Cultural Infrastructure and/or Heritage
-
Contribution to Creative Place Making
-
Contribution to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
-
Financial Benefit to Albemarle County
-
Social Benefit to Albemarle County
-
Extent to Which the Program Meets the Needs of the Community
-
Extent to Which the Program Meets the Needs of Specific Beneficiaries
The Review Team met ahead of the application review to review the scoring criteria for any adjustments. No adjustments were recommended by the team. After scoring applications individually, the team reconvened to review where there may have been large gaps between individual scorers. The scoring used to develop the funding recommendation was based on the average total score for the organization/program seeking funding.
FY 24 funding recommendations based upon program application rating:
-
Above a score of “50” – Fully Fund (both new and existing)
-
Existing Programs Between a score of “40 – 50” – Level funding from FY 23
-
New Programs above a score of “40” – $2,500
Requests that did not score based on the collective criteria were not recommended for funding.
-
35. Has there been consideration of local funding where the dollars would make the most difference? Also, is there a consideration of funding for some arts agencies who carry out missions which Parks and Recreation does in other places, thus supplanting other investment which would be needed?
For both questions above, please refer to the scoring criteria above in question 34. The team welcomes feedback on the scoring criteria for how they could be improved to best align with the Board’s priorities.36. Can you share about about where the vacancies are currently and which of those vacancies, if any, have been unfilled for over a year. Additionally, where are we filling positions added in FY 23?
Positions vacant more than 1 year: There are currently 6.5 positions that have been vacant for more than a year. Of these, 5 are Police Officer positions which are under continual recruitment. We have filled many Police Officer positions in the past year, but have not been fully staffed in this area. The additional 1.5 positions vacant for more than a year are listed below:
-
Assistant Registrar (0.5 FTE) – currently in the process of advertising
-
Maintenance Mechanic III (Facilities & Environmental Services) – currently interviewing.
New positions: At the start of FY 23, 40 new positions were approved with staggered start dates throughout FY 23. Of those 40 positions, 32 have been filled. The status of the 8 positions still vacant is as follows:
-
Boards and Commissions Liaison Coordinator – this position is on hold pending further direction from the Board of Supervisors.
-
2 Accountants (Finance & Budget) – currently recruiting for these positions. Have extended recruitment efforts at least twice and have not yet found qualified applicants. Working through various recruiting avenues and considering using staff augmentation resources.
-
Application Developer (Information Technology) – re-advertising position after insufficient pool of qualified candidates from initial posting
-
Systems Engineer (Information Technology) – re-advertising position after insufficient pool of qualified candidates from initial posting
-
2 Police Officers – continual recruitment
-
Property Maintenance Inspector (Community Development) – job description is being finalized and the goal is to fill by fiscal year end.
-
37. The March 8th work session presentation referenced the public safety pay scale changes. Please provide an updated copy of that pay scale, as it is not included in the Recommended Budget Document?
The pay scale can be viewed here.38. Provide an organization chart and dedicated resources for Economic Development, Housing, and Climate Action.
Following are diagrams with supporting description for each of the 3 items.
Project ENABLE is supported by the County’s Economic Development Department, Economic Development Agency Contributions, the County’s Capital Improvement Program, and the County’s Economic Development Fund.
The General Fund supports approximately $900,000 for 4 FTE’s and related operating costs. This amount also includes $171,000 in contributions to agencies that supplement and support the work of the Economic Development Office. It should be noted that by using these durable partner agencies, it allows the FTEs in Economic Development to focus on high priority projects and initiatives instead of having to focus on the support these agencies provide in the community.
The County’s recommended CIP includes $12.4 M, $3.1M annually from FY 25-28, for the purpose of obtaining site control of strategic properties, a critical component of negotiating public-private partnerships. The FY 23 Capital Budget also includes an additional $2M for this program that can be spent or carried forward for future projects.
The County also has an Economic Development Fund that allows for matching specific state grant opportunities, economic investment in development areas, and implementing priority economic development initiatives. At the beginning of FY 23, this budget was approximately $9.2M. Some of this funding is designated for previously approved performance agreements and current strategic projects being worked on by Economic Development.
The Office of Housing’s work towards the goals of Housing Albemarle is supported by two different housing-related programs within the Department of Human & Social Services, the staff that support the work related to the Housing Fund and the staff that support the work related to the Federal Housing Assistance Fund. The operational expenses are consolidated in Office of Housing’s budget within the Department of Human & Social Services, totaling approximately $862k in FY24.
The above chart shows those staff and related agencies in the General Fund that primarily support the policies and work related to the Housing Fund. The Housing Fund was established during FY 19 to provide support for Phase 1 of the Southwood Redevelopment Project and provide support for housing initiatives that are one-time costs and that support the County’s strategic and housing goals. Balances remaining for Housing Fund at the end of FY 23 will be recommended to be carried forward into FY 24.
The above chart shows those staff and related agencies in the General Fund that primarily support the Federal Housing Assistance Fund, which includes tenant-based and project-based voucher programs reimbursed by the Federal Government through the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Tenant-based voucher programs include the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program for the general public, as well as the Mainstream (MS5) program for families with disabilities and the Family Unification Program (FUP). Project-based vouchers have been negotiated in the development of several housing construction projects, including Treesdale, The Crossings, Crozet Meadows, Southwood, and Premier Circle. In FY 24 the County is projected to bring in $4.7 million in Federal program revenues that will be paid in rental subsidies through these voucher programs to landlords and property owners, offsetting an equal amount of savings for low-income families in rent.
The Climate Action Plan is directly supported by the County’s Environmental Management Division of the Facilities and Environmental Services Department and Climate Action Plan related agency contributions.
The General Fund supports approximately $866,000 for 2.25 FTE’s which are directly related to and responsible for the Climate Action initiatives, as well as the related operating costs of this division. This General Fund amount also includes a contribution to the AHIP – Assisted Home Energy Performance Program of $250K, to support the work of our Environmental Management division. It should be noted that by using these durable partner agencies, it allows the FTE’s in Environmental Management to focus on other priority projects and initiatives instead of having to focus on the support these agencies provide in the community.
In addition to the annual operating funds in the General Fund, there is also a Climate Action Reserve Pool, with a current balance of $447K. This reserve was established during FY 20 to support strategies to address climate change and may include investments such as partnerships with agencies to improve energy efficiency in homes and businesses; development and implementation of educational outreach programs; and targeted improvements of the energy efficiency of County buildings and fleet vehicles. Balances remaining for Climate Action Plan projects at the end of FY 23 will be recommended to be carried forward into FY 24.
39. Please provide a link to the School Board Funding Request and note reference pages as follow up.
FY 24 Budget Development Website:
https://www.k12albemarle.org/our-departments/fiscal-services/budget/2023-24-budget-development
Message from the School Board Chair
Previous Year Proposals Dashboard: A-60 to 61
Section B: School Fund Revenues
Section C: Expenditure Overview
List of localities in the adopted market: C-12
Section E: Department Expenditures
Section F: Special Revenue Funds
Section G: Supplemental Materials
Summary of Administrators by School: G-19
Differentiated staffing and Tiered Services Summary by School: G-20 to 21
Administrative staff includes employees who are at or above pay grade 18 and are identified as exempt employees. This includes principals, associate and assistant principals, central office and other leadership personnel throughout the School Division.
School-based administrators are assigned according to ACPS staffing standards (G-4 to 17)
- Principals - 1 per school
- Elementary Assistant Principals - 1 per school, 2 per school >700 students
- Middle Assistant Principal - 1 per school, 2 per school >800 students
- High Assistant Principal - 2 per school, 3 per school > 1000 students, 4 per school > 1700 students, 5 per school > 1700 students and >30% economically disadvantaged
- Counseling Director - 1 per high school
- Athletics Director - 1 per high school
According to the 2022-23 Human Resources Annual Report: 64% in Albemarle, 12% in Charlottesville, 6% in Fluvanna, 5% in Greene, 2% in Augusta, 2% in Louisa, 2% in Nelson, 1% in Buckingham, 1% in Orange, 1% in Waynesboro, <1% in Harrisonburg, <1% in Rockingham, <1% in Staunton
- Per the most recent Transportation Update to the School Board on March 9, 2023 the vacancy rate is 17.3%.
43. What are the other mental health services not included as part of the Mental Health Services Budget Proposal?
Below is a visual of the continuum of mental health services offered in our schools. Tier I represents services for all students and Tier II and Tier III represents services for smaller groups of students that require certain services.
Security Assistants serve Tier I students (the majority of our students) and Safety Coaches serve Tier II students. Both positions are supported by a continuum of safety and security services that overlap with mental health services.
Comprehensive job descriptions and requirements for all ACPS positions can be found here.
Specific job descriptions are provided here: Schools Security Assistant, Student Safety Coach.
The summary description and logic model for the FY 22 Budget Proposal - Student Safety Coaches can be found here on pages A-38 to 39.