|
Adjourned Meeting
March 21, 2000
6:00 p.m.
Meeting Convened. An Adjourned Meeting of the York County Board of
Supervisors was called to order at 6:01 p.m., Tuesday, March 21, 2000,
in the East Room, York Hall, by Chairman Walter C. Zaremba.
Attendance. The following members of the Board of Supervisors were
present: Walter C. Zaremba, Sheila S. Noll, Donald E. Wiggins, James S.
Burgett, and Melanie L. Rapp.
Also in attendance were Daniel M. Stuck, County Administrator; and
James E. Barnett, County Attorney.
WILLIAMSBURG AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE. (Not on Agenda)
Mr. Wiggins announced that he had attended a Chamber event which
was held in appreciation for donors to the new office building. He
presented a paperweight that he received in remembrance of the occasion.
Chairman Zaremba asked that the paperweight be placed in an
appropriate County display case.
WORK SESSION
BUDGET ISSUES
Revenue Update:
Mr. James O. McReynolds, Director of Financial and Management
Services, indicated the Federal government will be providing the County
with more revenue than was anticipated, and the State Compensation Board
will also be providing more. The picture with the interest rates also
looks better, and the total revenue increase looks to be about $126,725.
Miss Rapp asked if the increase for the Constitutional Officers
was across the Board or just for a specific Constitutional Officer.
Mr. McReynolds indicated the change in estimates was generally
across the Board.
Compensation:
Mr. McReynolds reviewed the non-licensed pay scale benchmarking
process and the reasons why the County does the benchmarking. He listed
the benchmarking positions used and the position characteristics of
each. He discussed the two market areas used in the benchmarking process
and the jurisdictions which they comprise. Mr. McReynolds then reviewed
with the Board members a sample data sheet showing how a position was
benchmarked.
Mr. Wiggins asked if all the benefits were considered with the
salary scales provided by the other jurisdictions.
Mr. McReynolds stated the benchmark study deals only with
salaries. Other comparisons are done to make sure the County's benefits
are generally in line with the other jurisdictions.
Mr. Stuck further explained that the County tries to make its
benefit package comparable to the other jurisdictions, but benefits are
tougher than salaries. Salaries are always one year behind, so the
proposal before the Board is a comparison with FY2000 salaries in other
jurisdictions. There would be a larger proposed increase if FY2001
figures from other jurisdictions were being used.
Discussion followed concerning the positions used for the
benchmark study and the fact that every County position is individually
reviewed every four years. The County's two pay curves were also
explained to the Board members.
Mr. Burgett indicated he looked at all employees making over
$50,000 and the possibility of providing them with a 2.7 percent
increase instead of the full 5.4 recommended. He stated his calculations
indicated there would be only a $73,000 difference to the budget.
Mrs. Noll indicated that doing anything different than one
percentage increase for everyone would cause a lot of morale problems.
She stated the numbers weren't worth the effort to adjust the scales.
Mr. McReynolds noted that because step increases are given to
employees depending on their anniversary dates, the savings would only
amount to about $10,000.
Chairman Zaremba questioned the equity of the scale being
increased the same percentage overall, noting that in actual dollars the
upper salary employees will get much more in comparison to those at the
lower end of the spectrum. When this is done over time, the gap between
each of these positions gets wider and wider.
Mr. Stuck explained that staff is always comparing a given
position with its comparison jobs in another jurisdiction. He stated
what he has seen is just the opposite-more compression between the
trades and supervisory positions. Mr. Stuck stated the market takes care
of the gap between top and bottom by valuing individual positions.
Mr. McReynolds then reviewed the costs that would be involved if
the Board were to pay 50 percent of the retirees' health insurance. He
stated he also reviewed the number of employees expected to retire in
the next five years, and the cost would be an additional $22,000 to
$27,000 a year. He indicated that the figures would go up as health
insurance premiums go up. Mr. McReynolds also noted there were 40-50
school retirees expected at a cost of an additional $72,000 to $90,000
per year. For comparison purposes, he stated the other communities were
polled to see what they do with regard to retirees and health insurance,
and it was found that some jurisdictions do not participate for
retirees; others do, but they have a base number of years a person must
have worked in order to have the jurisdiction participate with their
health insurance premium.
Discussion followed on blended rates and how they affect overall
costs.
Contributions to Outside Agencies/Community Organizations:
Mr. Stuck indicated the Board had been given a list of all
proposed General Fund contributions, but the staff had provided more
information on the agenda items included for specific contributions on
which the Board had questions or concerns.
The Board then reviewed the list item by item and agreed to the
following changes to the proposed budget:
Heritage Human Society: Add a $5,000 contribution, contingent on
an acceptable contract
Williamsburg Area Medical Assistance Corporation: Reduce
contribution by $5,000 and hold it for possible allocation to the CHIP
program if justification warrants
Zweibrucken Student Exchange Program: Chairman Zaremba asked that
staff take a look into the possibility of moving this program into the
School Division's budget.
York County Little League: Add $5,000 to Parks and Recreation
budget for portable restroom facilities
Meeting Recessed. At 8:08 p.m. Chairman Zaremba declared a short
recess.
Meeting Reconvened. At 8:21 p.m. the meeting was reconvened in
open session by order of the Chair.
Virginia Retirement System (VRS) Action by General Assembly and
Budget Impact:
Mr. McReynolds reviewed actions taken by the General Assembly
regarding VRS rates and contributions and assets valuation. He stated
the best figures staff had make it appear there will be a revenue
decrease because the State funds a portion of the benefit for the
teachers. This decrease drives an expenditure decrease which results in
a net gain of $455,000. Mr. McReynolds stated his concern is that this
funding won't necessarily be available in the future and may be one-time
only money.
Mr. Stuck then reviewed the options for application of the VRS
gain on the school side. With this change, all of a sudden $455,000 in
the school operating budget becomes available in FY01, and the question
is how to deal with it. He stated if the Board acts on his current
recommendation, then the $455,000 would be available to the School
Division to do with whatever it wants. Dr. Staples has recommended, and
the School Board has approved, the purchase of new school buses. The
School Division was going to buy them with lottery money which is
capital money. This new money frees up capital monies for the schools to
spend. Mr. Stuck explained the options included:
· Leave the budget as is · Split the funding between operations
and capital appropriations · Move all the money to capital
appropriations · Apply all to non-education items
Mrs. Noll indicated she preferred a rainy day fund or a portion of
it going to a rainy day fund.
Chairman Zaremba asked if there was any communication from the
State as to whether or not this money will be for more than one year.
Mr. Dennis Jarrett, School Division Finance Officer, indicated he
had received email to the effect that the rate approved by the State
Department of Education is the rate that will be used for two years of
the biennium.
Miss Rapp asked if the School Board has informed the County as to
how they want to use the money.
Mr. Stuck stated the School Division wishes to place the money in
the capital fund. He indicated he and Dr. Staples have had discussions
about whether or not there will be funding coming from impact aid to do
improvements to Bethel Elementary, but he did not think the School Board
had made any final decision.
Dr. Staples indicated it depends on the pocket of money being
discussed. The VRS money has to be used during the upcoming fiscal year,
so the School Board feels it should buy buses which frees up the lottery
money which has a longer shelf life. The School Board's discussion last
night indicated the members would take it up at its work session
scheduled for April 10. Dr. Staples stated the School Board members
recognize in the current CIP that there are already capital projects
underfunded.
FENCING ISSUE AT YORK HALL
Mr. Stuck indicated the Board had addressed this fence issue
before, and several Boardmembers had stated they wished to take a look
at the property. Staff has received another email request for the Board
to make a decision.
Mr. Wiggins and Mr. Burgett indicated they had visited the
property.
Mr. Wiggins stated the type of fence originally recommended was
not at all in keeping with the character of Yorktown, and he would not
be in favor of it at all.
Chairman Zaremba asked Mr. Wiggins if he perceived a need for a
fence at all.
Mr. Wiggins indicated the County no longer had a jail there, and
he saw no need for a fence.
Mr. Burgett noted the first two houses have photinia bushes that
are huge. The County has planted wax myrtles which will be 10-15 feet in
height, so it would not be that long before the foliage completely
separated the residences from the parking lot to York hall. Mr. Burgett
stated he could not see spending the money for a fence.
Mrs. Noll agreed, stating she would go along with leaving a
foliage-only buffer.
Miss Rapp noted the County made a mistake, and needs to ask
forgiveness, but she stated she also could not see spending money for a
fence that was not needed.
PERSONNEL COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
Mr. Stuck provided the Board members with pages from the current
Personnel Manual which addressed how the system works today regarding
the authority of the County Administrator to manage the system. He
stated the last time this topic was discussed there was a question about
what other localities do, and he noted he had included a chart as to
what other localities do regarding hiring and firing practices. He
explained the background leading to the establishment of the County's
personnel manual and the current system today which is very common to
local governments. Mr. Stuck reviewed the authorities and
responsibilities outlined in the current policies and procedures manual.
He noted the manual requires annual review on or about July 1 of each
year. He stated all of the other communities in the Hampton Roads area
operate the way York does at the present time.
Mr. Burgett presented the Board with the following proposal for an
Executive Personnel Committee of the York County Board of Supervisors:
The need exists to establish a personnel policy, which empowers
the Board of Supervisors to directly control the major elements of York
County Government. The Board of Supervisors bears the ultimate
responsibility for the success or failure of County government making it
imperative that the Board control its destiny. The leadership of the
various divisions of the government is a critical factor of such
importance that the Board of Supervisors must take part in personnel
management of these key players. The establishment of an Executive
Personnel Committee will meet this need.
The Executive Personnel Committee shall consist of the Board
Chairman, Vice Chairman, and the County Administrator.
The Executive Personnel Committee shall be responsible for the
hiring and/or dismissal for the following County government director
positions: Environmental and Development Services, Financial and
Management Services, Community Services, Fire and Life Safety, General
Services, and any future additions to the executive staff.
The Executive Personnel Committee performs only the actions listed
above.
Mr. Burgett stated this action would not be unprecedented, and
nothing indicates that the present system must stay the way it is. If
there is a failure or a problem, the responsibility doesn't go to the
department head; it goes to the Board of Supervisors. He stated when
these key people are picked, the Board should be aware of the importance
of these positions and their importance to the Board. Mr. Burgett stated
the personnel manual was wonderful, and he wouldn't change a thing; but
when the buck goes around, it stops with the Board of Supervisors. He
stated he felt the Board should have a say in its own destiny, and he
did not think it would clog the system up or result in Board members
telling the Department Directors how to run their departments. Mr.
Burgett stated the establishment of the committee would make a statement
that the Board of Supervisors runs the County.
Mr. Wiggins stated that when a new Board comes into office,
changes are made. He noted that a County Administrator usually averages
3-5 years in any one locality. Many times the first thing a new board
does is get a new administrator. He stated the County has to expect some
changes to be made after all these years, and he indicated he was in
favor or Mr. Burgett's proposal.
Chairman Zaremba indicated the current policy didn't spell out the
actual procedure the County would go through to select a director, and
he asked Mr. Stuck to explain the procedure.
Mr. Stuck explained the philosophy of the policy in that it was
designed to be very management friendly so that within the parameters of
the law the County can have a degree of management control over what the
employees do without getting into a lot of detailed procedures. There is
no specificity as to how the hiring is done; each department handles its
hiring differently. Mr. Stuck explained the way he typically goes about
hiring a director which is through the use of an interview panel that is
comprised of a couple of people from other jurisdictions having a
thorough knowledge of the position being hired as well as another one of
the department directors and his Assistant. Depending on what comes out
of the panel interview, he stated he would interview one, two, or three
candidates in order to make a final decision. He also noted that he has
almost always gone with the recommendation of the panel.
Mr. Burgett stated his only recommendation was that an Executive
Committee give direct input to the most senior level positions.
Mr. Stuck indicated he has always discussed his hiring selections
with the Board of Supervisors in closed session as well as certain
personnel situations or issues dealing with department directors or
senior staff.
Mrs. Noll asked why Mr. Burgett felt there was a strong need for
the Board to have this power. She stated that normally when a change is
made it is made because something needs to be fixed, and she indicated
she did not understand what it was that needed fixing. She stated she
feels the County is running very well, and the citizens are very happy.
Mrs. Noll stated York County was not unique in the way it administered
its personnel policies.
Mr. Burgett stated he was elected because he stood for certain
things, and people expected the Board to do certain things. The Board
was elected because people want change. Mr. Burgett stated he was very
comfortable that the people who voted for him would be happy with his
proposal because it was in line with his political beliefs.
Mrs. Noll questioned whether or not the voters would actually
support the proposal. She stated she worried very much that the proposal
would be politicizing the directorates. If the Supervisors get involved
in hiring practices, she stated she could see the possibility of abuses
and going back to "good old boy" patronage. Mrs. Noll stated
she felt there should be one boss-the administrator. She stated she felt
the system has been working well, and she could not support the
proposal. She indicated she had no intention of giving up her voting
right to the Chairman and Vice Chairman, and the Board must act as an
entity. If the Administrator makes decisions the Board dislikes, then it
is the Board's responsibility to replace the Administrator. The Board
members are not experts in the personnel field, and those operations
should be left to the professionals with oversight by the Board.
Miss Rapp asked that the draft Ground Rules for Conduct and
Interaction among the Board members be placed on Thursday's work session
agenda. She noted her agreement with Mrs. Noll that a change was not
needed unless something needed fixing. Miss Rapp stated she had just
received the proposal this evening, and she would not work under its
conditions if she were the County Administrator. Chief executive
officers and presidents of companies do not hire and fire personnel;
they have people they respect and trust to do it for them. She stated
that elected officials by virtue of their election are not qualified to
participate in the final decisions of hiring or firing professional
people in the higher positions of government. The Board of Supervisors
will have a difficult enough time participating in the management of its
two direct-hire employees, the County Administrator and the County
Attorney. Miss Rapp stated she did not feel the citizens would be well
served if the Board were to participate in the hiring and firing of
highly paid officials who have recourse to complex administrative
procedures when they perceived they find themselves in an unjust
personnel situation. She stated it would be questionable as to who then
would be responsible for protecting the interests of the citizens if the
elected officials were involved in grievance procedures. If the Board
were to be directly involved in hiring the department directors, she
asked who would be responsible for the day-to-day supervision of those
directors and would the elected officials participate in the performance
evaluations of those individuals. Miss Rapp also stated that three of
the Board members would be denied their voting rights by Mr. Burgett's
proposal, and she did not feel politics belonged in the board room She
stated she felt Mr. Burgett's proposal would take away the County
Administrator's authority to manage the County and its staff.
Chairman Zaremba stated the proposal was brought up to entertain
some discussion as to why the Board might want to favorably consider the
merits of Mr. Burgett's proposal. No one has indicated the Board would
be making a decision on the proposal at this time. He stated he did not
think he heard Mr. Burgett say he felt the County was being run
improperly, but he did state that as well as the County was being run,
there was always room for improvement. Mr. Zaremba stated there has been
a change of government in the last couple of months, and each Board
member has the prerogative to propose their ideas as to the best way to
serve the people of the County.
Mr. Wiggins stated he felt the people have told him what they want
out of government and what they want from the people who work for them.
He stated this proposal was another way to provide leadership for the
people of York County.
Chairman Zaremba stated the Board members all bring their
different values and objectives to the table which is what dialog is all
about.
Miss Rapp asked Mr. Burgett if there was any other reason other
than what was in his written proposal as to why he felt the personnel
committee should be established.
Mr. Burgett answered no, stating he simply felt the Board should
have a say in the selection of the people who lead the departments of
the County. He stated he felt the Board should take an active
participatory role at the highest level of York County's government.
Miss Rapp asked Mr. Wiggins if he felt there were problems in the
departments that this sort of proposal might solve.
Mr. Wiggins stated he only wanted the people to be represented in
the manner in which they elected him to the Board to represent them.
Mrs. Noll expressed her concern about mixing politics and
professionalism. She stated she did not want employees beholden to the
political process in any way. The Board delegated the authority, but it
still ultimately sat with the Board of Supervisors.
Chairman Zaremba noted the Board was comprised of five individuals
who are highly motivated and want to do what is in the best interests of
the citizens of York County. He stated he feels they all would like to
leave the organization in better shape than when they inherited it. He
indicated that suggestions such as Mr. Burgett's are perfectly normal
and within the purview of the elected official, and they all have their
counterpoints and arguments. He asked the Board members to discuss the
proposal amongst themselves and weigh the arguments for and against. He
stated there was no intent on the part of the Board to embarrass or
abuse one another, but the democratic process involves discussion and
dialog that can be emotional and heated at times.
Miss Rapp asked if there was a timeframe to look toward in making
a decision on the proposal.
Chairman Zaremba indicated there was no timeframe.
Mrs. Noll noted the decision would be made at a public meeting.
PROPOSAL FOR PRESIDENTIAL PARK (Not on Agenda)
Chairman Zaremba indicated he had received five or six phone calls
today concerning the heads at the Days Inn, and not one of them was in
favor of the initiative for Presidential Park.
COMMENDATION OF THE BRUTON HIGH SCHOOL BASKETBALL TEAM (Not on
Agenda)
Chairman Zaremba expressed congratulations to the Bruton High
School Basketball Team for its success in winning the State High School
Basketball Tournament.
DOCKING PRIVILEGES IN YORKTOWN (Not on Agenda)
Chairman Zaremba indicated he had spoken with Mr. Mershon today
concerning docking privileges in Yorktown, and Mr. Mershon asked if any
other boat companies were going to have free docking privileges when the
new waterfront is completed. Mr. Mershon told him he had received
information that one or two others were going to be given free
privileges.
Mr. Stuck stated that to his knowledge there are two companies
with docking privileges, and the larger cruise ship pays per day, per
foot. The other boat is the small one running a luncheon cruise. Mr.
Stuck noted the Board signed a docking agreement for three years with
the small boat owner, and until year three the boat's owner is obligated
to do maintenance on the pier and in-kind services as a tradeoff. At
some point in time there is a payment involved. He stated the intent is
that there would be some docking charges for the new pier unless there
was a special event to which the Board wished to encourage special
vessels to come.
Chairman Zaremba asked that Mr. Carter call Mr. Mershon.
VACANCY ON THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (IDA) (Not on
Agenda)
Chairman Zaremba noted that he had received a letter from Mr.
Coxton announcing his resignation from the IDA, and there was now a
vacancy to be filled.
Meeting Adjourned. At 9:40 p.m. Chairman Zaremba declared the
meeting adjourned to 6:00 p.m., Thursday, March 23, 2000, in the East
Room, York Hall, for the purpose of conducting a work session.
______________________________
____________________________
Daniel M. Stuck,
Clerk
Walter C. Zaremba, Chairman
York County Board of
Supervisors
York County Board of Supervisors
Back to Index
|
